Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will realise that there are petitions today, but I shall take a point of order from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Newton: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that a careful check of the Division lists in Hansard for the first Division last night reveals only 316 names for the Ayes and 317 for the Noes. On that basis, of course, the Opposition amendment would have been rejected without your casting vote. It would be wrong to expect you to make any immediate comment on this, but I think that the whole House would hope that you will feel able to inquire into whatever mistake or misunderstanding may have occurred.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. Is it on the same point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Mine is, Madam Speaker; yours is different, Tam.
In view of what the Leader of the House has had to say about last night's vote, is it not significant that this Government, who have lost the authority and confidence of the House of Commons, have not even got Whips and Tellers who are capable of counting? No wonder the country is up to its neck in debt.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We should not use up a great deal of time on this matter because I can deal with it. The matter raised by the Leader of the House will no doubt be looked into, but if there was an error such as he describes, it does not affect the main Question that was put to the House last night. Of course, today's proceedings are not affected by it at all.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the end of last night's vote I put to you article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which says:

That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.
I am now able to put before you two items which indicate that that is in prospect. First, the Prime Minister said:
The treaty in the Maastricht Bill—the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given …so the treaty will be ratified. Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 526.]
The Prime Minister was determining which votes were valid and which votes were not, and he was doing it by the authority that he has as Prime Minister.
Secondly, and more significantly, the Government have indicated that if they lose today's vote there will be an election. Does the Prime Minister have the authority from the Queen? Has she said that there will be an election? [Interruption.] That is the issue. I am asking a straightforward question. If the Queen has given the Prime Minister the authority to dissolve Parliament, he should tell us so, as he would be using regal authority to destroy a Parliament that had reached a view with which he did not agree.

Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman and the House would have expected of me, I have given serious consideration to the point that was put to me last night. I am satisfied that today's motion is in conformity with section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act and meets its requirement in the new situation following the Prime Minister's statement last night. By the same token, the amendment that stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is equally in order, and I have selected it.
On another point, may I remind the House that, as they are proceedings pursuant to an Act of Parliament, the debate today may continue until 4 o'clock.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Under the rules of the House of Commons as they pertain on a Friday, have you had any request from the Foreign Secreetary to make a statement on the significant compromise reached a few hours ago by the United Nations negotiators in Baghdad—[Interruption.] This might be a question of peace and war —on the negotiations that the United Nations is conducting, particularly with regard to the lifting of sanctions as part of that compromise?

Madam Speaker: Not so far, but there is a little time to go until 10 o'clock, so there is always hope.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect to the motion, there is presumably some difficulty in the fact that the treaty says that there will be a protocol on social policy but the Act of Parliament that we passed only last week expressly excluded the protocol on social policy. Does that create a difficulty for the motion?

Madam Speaker: No difficulty at all. The hon. Gentleman will have read the motion carefully and will understand what the debate is about. He will make up his own mind how he will vote at 4 o'clock.

PETITIONS

Sub-post Offices

Mr. Michael Clapham: Rarely will there have been so many hon. Members present to hear a petition.
The petition comes from the residents of Elsecar. It is addressed to "The honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled." It says:
The humble petitioners of the sub-post office users in Elsecar, South Yorkshire…are against the removal by the Government of the right to receive pensions and benefit payments at local post offices.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House request the Government to give people the right to choose to receive pensions and benefits payments at their local post office, recognising the benefits of this to individual and community.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Elsecar is a rural village in some ways typical, and in others not so typical, of the 16 others in my constituency. Any decision to remove from the sub-post office the opportunity to pay benefits over the counter would substantially affect its viability.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have the honour to present a petition bearing the signatures of 4,895 residents of Caithness and Sutherland.—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. If hon. Members were quieter, we could hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Maclennan: I have the honour to present a petition bearing the signatures of 4,895 residents of Caithness and Sutherland who express their
deep concern that the Government propose to privatise post offices and compulsorily transfer social security payments from post offices to banks, and we oppose these measures …

as they threaten the very survival of rural post offices and deny the efficiency and convenience of the present system, especially in rural areas.
The petition goes on to state:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress on the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to the banks.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Donna Cooper

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have the honour to present to the House a petition from the parents and family of Donna Cooper.
Donna was the innocent victim of a particularly mindless crime. She was killed by a stolen car driven recklessly by a person who had been released on bail the previous day. Her death at the tragically early age of 13 outraged the whole nation as well as her local community and helped to concentrate attention on the vital need to amend the law.
I must pay tribute to Donna's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Cooper, her brother and sister, her aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Hayward, and all their family and friends and those who have worked so enormously hard to raise the petition, which has been signed by 273,000 people.
I would also like to thank the Home Secretary for finding the time personally to receive from Mr. and Mrs. Cooper a petition raised by our local newspaper, the Evening Mail, containing more than 70,000 signatures. The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urgently consider the need to increase the powers of the Courts given in the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 as two years imprisonment (five if the injury is fatal) to better reflect the loss of a human life. Sentencing should be also punitive and exemplary.

To lie upon the Table.

Social Policy Protocol (Confidence Motion)

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to today's main motion.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.
After yesterday's motion, the Cabinet thought it right to bring this motion immediately before the House. I said yesterday to the House that European policy had created a division in British politics for 20 years. We have seen the effects of that vividly over recent months. If asked, most people in the country would say that the House has spent most of its time in the past year doing nothing but debate the European Communities treaty. It has, indeed, been fully debated, but the House has done a great deal more. In one parliamentary Session, it has passed a large number of reforming Bills—on education, asylum, housing and urban renewal, trade union reform, and personal pensions. One third of our manifesto at the last election will have been enacted by the end of this parliamentary Session, and that is much to the advantage of the British nation.
Most of that will have been masked from public gaze by the disputes over European policy. Not only has that legislation been passed, but, over the same period, we have moved clearly from recession to growth. It is now clear that growth prospects for the year are likely to exceed earlier forecasts.
Those are some of the realities of what has occurred over the past year. Britain is now moving back into recovery, ready for significant sustained growth with low inflation. At the general election, that was the prescription which we promised and it is now becoming clearer day by day that that is what is being delivered to the British nation.
Against that background, it is in our national interest that we keep up the pace of reform and the pace of recovery. Parliament must put this stalemate over Europe behind it. I am not prepared to let it poison the political atmosphere any longer. The boil must be lanced, and it must be lanced today. Therefore, I shall set out in the clearest possible terms the implication for today's debate.
We have before us a motion of confidence in the Government, with all the implications that flow from that. Lest there be any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member, the issue of confidence also extends to the Opposition's amendment. No hon. Member should be under any misapprehension about that, even though its terms are intended to entrap the unwary. It is precisely the amendment that was defeated yesterday.
At the conclusion of this debate, either the Government will have won the vote of confidence and we can proceed with our policy, subject to one outstanding court case, or we shall have lost and I shall seek a dissolution of Parliament.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later. I want to make a little progress now.
This debate is about the Government's policy of rejecting the social chapter. I shall spell out the disadvantages so that no one can misunderstand me. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted from the social chapter. He made it sound innocuous, harmless and even benign. If he wants to keep his blinkers on, so be it—but let Conservative Members be in no doubt about the costs and the implications of the social chapter.
Measures that the Community has already brought forward, which abuse health and safety provisions, show us the scale of the costs likely to be involved in the social chapter's provisions. The working time directive orginally would have cost British industry £5 billion; by our efforts, that figure has been substantially reduced. The part-time directive orginally would have cost £1 billion; largely by our efforts, that directive has been stalled. The young workers directive would cost up to £150 million. Those are just three provisions, but they add up to more than £6 billion in potential costs. I could add to that (list. If the social chapter came into being, those costs would be added to for every single business in this country, with the inevitable effect on jobs.
Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that employers would have to meet those costs, and more, under the social chapter. There would be higher prices, lost jobs and less competitiveness. That is the policy which the right hon. and learned Gentleman espouses. He may wish to indulge himself by voting for the social chapter—he has the luxury of being able to strike attitudes—but we must deal in realities. He would not have to pay the price of his attitudes. The price would be paid by millions of men and women working hard to hold down jobs, bring up families and improve their working conditions.
At any time, the social chapter would be an unwarranted intrusion into British life; but now, just when recovery is beginning to emerge, it would put recovery at risk. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to take my word for it, perhaps he will take the word of the chairman of ICI—[Interruption.] Labour Members may choose to scoff and sneer at the chairman of ICI, but it is his company which provides jobs in their constituencies. It is the policy of Labour.Members which would cost their constituents those jobs.
What the chairman of ICI had to say—perhaps the Opposition would care to listen to and reflect upon it—was:
Continental Europe is currently in deep recession while the UK has the beginnings of an economic recovery… It is…asbsolutely vital that business does not have imposed upon it additional costs which are unnecessary and which, in turn, could hinder the recovery.
Those are not my words, but the words of one of the most senior business men in this country.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to hinder the recovery, or does he think that he knows more about British industry than Sir Denys Henderson, who runs ICI? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to impose the social chapter and hazard the recovery now coming through, especially the five consecutive monthly falls in unemployment? It is self-evident that that is exactly what he wishes to do. The most fatuous comment this House has heard for months was his assertion yesterday that the social chapter would create jobs, not cost them. Only in the unemployment offices would it create jobs.

Mr. Tony Marlow: What does my right hon. Friend say in response to the argument put forward by many respectable business men that if we ratify this wretched treaty but we do not have the social chapter, things will be done through the social chapter by the other 11 countries which, through other aspects of the treaty, will then be imposed on the United Kingdom? If we are not there, we cannot control and restrain them.

The Prime Minister: I would say what many business men would have said to my hon. Friend had he asked them—that he is talking nonsense. The business men of this country have made it absolutely clear that they support ratification of the Maastricht treaty without the social chapter. I fail to understand why my hon. Friend wishes to impose extra costs on companies in his constituency of Northampton, North and put his constituents out of work. I hope that he can justify that to them.
I repeat that the Government cannot afford to, and will not, throw away the recovery. The social chapter is a risk which we will not take.

Mr. Benn: In making this debate a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that if the Government lose there will be a general election. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward question: has he asked the Queen to grant a dissolution? Has she agreed to grant a dissolution? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that—as has happened in the past—she might say, "It is only a new Parliament. There are other leaders who might take it on"? She might refuse a dissolution.

The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear that if we lose the Division today I will seek a dissolution of Parliament. If the Government cannot carry their business, a dissolution of Parliament would undoubtedly be granted. The fact is that yesterday a disparate group of Members, voting for different interests on the same matter, chose to defeat the Government on a matter for which there is a genuine majority in the House. I repeat that the Government regard this as an issue of confidence and we will seek the dissolution of Parliament if we are defeated today.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister, during proceedings in this House, to say that a dissolution would undoubtedly be granted, thereby appearing to put words in the mouth of the sovereign?

Madam Speaker: It is for all hon. Members and Ministers to make their own comments, not for the Speaker of this House to interpret them or comment upon them.

The Prime Minister: It is interesting to know in reality how unready the Liberal Democrates are for an election—[Interrupt ion.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take a point of order.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister's speech, and his whole case, is based upon what he considers to be the evils that are contained in the social chapter—a document which was issued in 1989 and was referred to in the reply to yesterday's debate.
From the researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), it emerged yesterday in a written answer that he received from a Minister that the social charter has never been presented or published by Her Majesty's Government in Britain. Is it not the case that that charter, which is at the heart of this debate, has not been published by the Government, is not on the Table of the House, and is not in the Vote Office, so how can we proceed sensibly to consider this matter? Is it not the case that this whole debate is being conducted on hearsay and prejudice without the proper documentation being before the House?

Madam Speaker: We are proceeding today under an Act of Parliament that has already passed through this House.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that I spent nearly four years in the Whips Office—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] During that time, I was instructed not to apply any overt duress—[Laughter.] I will rephrase that, for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who are unable to follow the narrative. I was advised not to apply pressure or duress overtly in order to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote one way or another. I tried to obey that advice. Is not the Prime Minister's reference to the prospect of a general election creating improper pressure on the many Conservative Members whose seats are in jeopardy?

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, too, was in the Whips Office, in support of a Government who did not have a majority—and I know all about duress.

The Prime Minister: The House is full of former Whips.
At this moment, Britain is uniquely placed in regard to the rest of Europe—a "paradise for investors", as M. Delors so kindly put it. There is no doubt that Britain—with low inflation, low interest rates, competitive labour costs and competitive interest rates—has the leading edge in the marketplace in Europe. The Government have no intention of throwing away those hard-won advantages, as the social chapter would compel us to do.
The obsession that some Opposition Members have with the social chapter is bizarre. They want more regulation and more social costs just as the rest of Europe is seeking to draw back from extra social costs. France is curbing spending on health and pensions. Holland is freezing social security benefits. Germany is cutting back unemployment assistance and job creation schemes. They are doing so because they realise that Europe must keep all its costs down to compete in the world.
Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about competitiveness in Europe, but Europe must compete with the United States and Japan as well. All across Europe people know that Europe is losing competitiveness at present. Twenty years ago, the unemployment rate across Europe was 60 per cent. of that in the United States. Today, it is 60 per cent. above the United States. That is largely because of the extra costs that we have placed on our businesses, running their competitiveness and damaging their employment prospects.
The Opposition may seek to make gestures and price people out of work, but the Government's job is to put them back in work—and that is the policy which we shall follow.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister is making another knocking speech against the social chapter. The reality is that he believes that he can politically survive today only if he threatens his entire party with self-destruction in a general election campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how often and how long such a tactic can be successfully employed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, with his curious voting pattern on Europe, represents a part of the United Kingdom which has done remarkably well out of inward investment because of our membership of the European Community—a membership which he would have done well to support in the Lobbies last night with the Government. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will have noted how he voted.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. History shows that down the years sordid deals on the Floor of the House have cost the lives of countless people in the north of Ireland. Does not the Prime Minister have a duty today to tell the House what deal he did with the nine Ulster Unionists to buy their votes yesterday, contrary to their manifesto? Will you, Madam Speaker, also ask the Prime Minister to rule that the definition of an honest man is one who, once he has been bought, stays bought?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that those matters are not for me but for debate.

The Prime Minister: I will clear up the matter for the hon. Gentleman so that he is left in no doubt. Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered, and nothing was given. So perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to withdraw his remark. He might also bear in mind that unemployment in the part of the United Kingdom that he represents is very high, as he never ceases to remind the House. He, too, would make it higher, by the way that he cast his vote in the Divisions that we have had.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—particularly, given his latter remarks, as I am wearing the Anglo-Irish tie. Further to his comments yesterday, which he has just repeated, does he agree that so severe has the recession become in the other European countries that, although no specific proposals for the social chapter have yet been made, when they are published in due course we shall find that they are milder than the social action programme that the Government already accept under the social dimension? May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend what all the fuss is about?

The Prime Minister: I will tell my hon. Friend what all the fuss is about. Once we adhere to the social protocol, it will be there for good—not just for the brief period in which our partners in Europe may be wary about bringing matters forward.

Mr. William Cash: Given that the motion deals specifically with the adoption of the protocol on social policy, will my right hon. Friend tell me how we shall be able to go ahead with it when it is expressly

excluded by the Act of Parliament that was passed last week but is included in the treaty that my right hon. Friend signed?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend, despite his close study of the matter, has perhaps misunderstood the domestic legislation that we have been examining. If he cares to read it more carefully—perhaps he could take some time to do so before we vote this afternoon—he will understand the whole matter a little better.
The Government were elected just over a year ago with the largest popular vote in British history. It was a vote for policies for economic recovery, which we are now getting, for private enterprise, which we will sustain, and for individual freedom, which we are extending.

Mr. John Hume: rose—

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have generously given way, and I wish to make some progress.
The social chapter would put much of that at risk. What the electors did not vote for at the last election was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies: increased inflation, corporatism and state intervention, a reverse of trade union reform, and craven compliance and abject surrender in the face of every regulation coming from Brussels. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are only too ready to advance socialism through Europe, never ready to stand up to battle for British ideas and British ideas in Europe.
One whiff of a new regulation, a new burden or a new cost from Europe and the right hon. and learned Gentleman yelps that he wants it too. No doubt as a small boy he was avid for measles and desperate for chicken pox as well. What is more, he says, without these new burdens Britain will become a sweatshop economy. It would be a great help if, during the recess, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would go out into industry and meet some of the people who run it.
What would the social chapter do to much of other parts of legislation? Gone, reluctantly and sadly in the minds of Opposition Members, are the days when the trade unions held such sway in this country. They held it to ransom month after month, year after year. Now all they hold is the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ransom, issue by issue—not the Leader of the Opposition, but the trade unions' glove puppet when it comes to policy. The social chapter would put much of that in reverse gear. The last thing we want is a Government committed to putting union bosses back in the boardroom, and I cannot believe that the House will vote for that.
Many countries in the European Community are now going into recession, and that is where the obsession with extra regulation would put us back as well, just as we have emerged from it. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to adopt the social chapter when other countries are beginning to realise its costs and burdens. As the president—

Mr. Hume: rose—

The Prime Minister: I have given way sufficiently.
As the president of the CBI said in The Times yesterday—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like these quotes from people who understand business but they are going to get them. He said:


A Commons vote tonight leading to inclusion of the social chapter in the ratified Maastricht treaty would set back the cause of common sense and competitiveness in Europe by sevaral years.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will shortly be the first Labour leader to speak to the CBI; perhaps before he goes he should start listening to the CBI, too.
Other countries around the world are beginning to realise the effect of excessive social costs. The chairmen of our leading banks yesterday may it perfectly clear that their concern—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not care. I am talking about the people who run industry and commerce, but the Opposition do not care. They do not mind how many people are unemployed if they can salve their consciences. The chairmen made it clear that people outside, European business men, are
concerned about the costs and over-rigid labour and social benefit structures in their own countries, and see the social chapter as adding to this problem.
Only Opposition Members fail to be able to see that.
The choice because the House today could not be clearer. The Government have opened up new opportunities for people with low inflation and for union members to have more say in their affairs, more opportunities for home owners and more opportunities for business to compete abroad. By contrast, the Opposition offer policies of opportunism, not opportunity, at every level.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said last year:
I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht treaty", yet that is exactly what he did last night. He claims to be an ardent European. He said:
I have always believed that Britain's future lies in Europe, and that we must take a confident and leading role in the European Community.
So what has the ardent European done in the last year? He voted against Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. He voted against Maastricht in the paving debate; he voted against Maastricht last night. What did he do on Second Reading of the Single European Act, this ardent European? He abstained. What did he do on Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill, this ardent European? He abstained. On Third Reading, the ardent European abstained. Mr. Valiant-for-Abstention—the ardent European. Perhaps, out of sheer habit, he will abstain when we come to the vote this afternoon. Some European, and some principles! As Dr. Johnson said of a man with allegedly good principles, "He does not wear them out in practice"; and neither does the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wears his principles lightly so that he may discard them whenever convenient.
This country cannot afford to let this stalemate on European policy continue. It is against the interests of government in this country to do so. This House must decide today whether it is prepared to sustain the Government in office or encourage me to seek a dissolution. We did not lightly bring this motion forward, but the matter could not have been left any longer. It has to be decided, and the only way to decide it is to reject the social chapter. If this country were to accept it, it would mean an end to recovery, a return to corporatism, and an end to competitiveness. That is not the way forward for this country, and I hope that the House will decisively reject it.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from 'That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should not deposit the Articles of Ratification of the Treaty of European Union with the Government of the Italian Republic until such time as it has given notification to the European Community that it intends to adopt the Agreement attached to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
Last night, the Prime Minister suffered a humiliating and crushing defeat. It was a defeat not only on a crucial plank of his European policy but on the single issue which is taken as the flagship of his Administration.
With no hint of modesty, and clearly no inkling—not even a clue—of the problems to come, the Prime Minister advertised his visit to Maastricht as game, set and match. Nineteen months later, after endless footfaults, double faults and mishits, he was struggling with a tie-break. Today, like some petulant tennis prima donna, he is threatening to take his racquet away. Perhaps, after his next negotiating triumph in Europe, the Prime Minister would be better advised to use cricketing metaphor—but, then again, perhaps not. After all, he was clean bowled yesterday and he has been forced to follow on today.
Today, in this debate and in this crucial vote, is the Prime Minister relying on the merits of his opt-out strategy, the force of his arguments and on the strength of his case? No, I fear not. He tried all that yesterday and look where it got him. The very centre of his case yesterday was that Britain had to opt in to Europe. He told us how crucial it was to be on the inside track, shaping events, defending Britain's interests, involved and influential in the councils of decision. In his portentous way, the Prime Minister warned us yesterday:
If we wilfully throw away our capacity to defend our interests and promote our policies—this country will pay a dear price for that folly in the years to come."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 522.]
He was in his "Britain at the heart of Europe" mode, but he appeared throughout it all, as he has today, to be totally unaware of the fundamental contradiction that is right at the heart of his own argument.
The more the Prime Minister argued for Britain to be involved with real influence in all aspects of the European Community, the more he exposed the sheer absurdity of an opt out from the social protocol, which would give this country no influence and no power over what he claimed to be matters of great concern to the Community and to this country. The Prime Minister's version of being at the heart of Europe, apparently, is to be required to leave the room when the Community considers crucial social policy decisions. The triumph of the ace negotiator is an empty chair for Britain in the Council of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman, just as appears to be the case today, appeared to be totally incapable of comprehending the disordered logic of his own case, which simply amounts to the bizarre claim that in order to opt in, Britain, somehow, has to opt out.
Nor has the Prime Minister been able to explain the pertinent questions that were asked from the Opposition side of the House yesterday about why, if the social chapter is such a disaster for this country, that penetrating piece of wisdom has not penetrated the mind of Chancellor Kohl, Mr. Balladur, whom the Prime Minister will be meeting on Monday, and Mr. Lubbers, or the mind of


members of any other European Community Governments with whom the Prime Minister seeks to have fraternal relations.

Mr. Hume: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, unlike the Prime Minister who obviously does not want to answer questions that he thinks are going to be about Northern Ireland. I had hoped that I could put my question to the Prime Minister, so perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer for him.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a very serious contradiction in the position of this country, which is one of the major contributors to the European Community budget and which will be paying for this costly social chapter that the Prime Minister talked about, when ordinary working people will not be allowed to benefit from the social chapter and when the Prime Minister will not be allowed to sit round the table when the budget for the social chapter is being distributed? It is illogical.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has highlighted something that is becoming increasingly understood by the people of this country, as we now focus properly on the social protocol aspect of the debate. The people of this country do not understand why they have a Government who want to deny to them the social rights, the social opportunities and the social advantages which the whole Community wants for its citizens.

Mr. David Shaw: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No.
Furthermore, many sensible employers in this country understand that it would he very wise to have a level playing field of social responsibility which would stop companies and countries trying to drive each other down in order to get a fleeting competitive advantage. The whole of the European Community—parties and Governments—is in favour of the social chapter, except for two the Prime Minister and his party and Mr. Le Pen and his party. I am bound to say that I am more proud of the company that I keep than of the company that the Prime Minister keeps.
We know from the terms of the Government's motion today that the Prime Minister has abandoned his flawed arguments. He has been backed against the wall and forced, in order to survive, to threaten his own party with electoral suicide.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I will certainly give way to one of the possible candidates for electoral suicide.

Mr. Oppenheim: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said the same thing in the last three elections and he lost each time, but I thank him for his courtesy, if that is the word, ih giving way. If labour market regulation is so good for workers, can he explain how it is that in Spain, which has some of the toughest employment laws in Europe and all the benefits of a socialist Government, there is 20 per cent. unemployment?

Mr. Smith: If Conservative economic policies for this country are so wise, I could ask the hon. Gentleman why it is that we have millions of unemployed people here.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Quiet. It is time that some members of the Cabinet went on their holidays. They might come back a little calmer and a little quieter. They should not allow the prospect of electoral suicide to upset them in the way that, apparently, it is doing, but they sit there worrying about electoral suicide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The simple answer is that all other parties in Europe understand that economic progress and social progress go together. That is understood on the left in Europe and on the right in Europe. It is also understood in the centre of Europe. The only place where it is not comprehended is here, by these people who are temporarily in charge of this country.
It appears not to have occurred to the Prime Minister that his tactic of employing a quasi motion of confidence in Her Majesty's Government is not a sign of confidence but a display of weakness. The Prime Minister lost the argument in a House in which he has a clear overall majority on the most important aspect of his legislative programme—one which, moreover, he has stamped with his own personal design and authority. As a result of his failure, he has been forced to make a humiliating threat to his own party: that unless Conservative Members come into the Government Lobby today he will press the self-destruct button of a general election, which both he and they know would result in a massive defeat for this Government and in the loss of their seats.
I noticed that one of the rebels said on radio or television this morning or yesterday that a general election would result in the loss of possibly one third of the Conservative seats in this House of Commons—hardly a sign of confidence. It is hardly a symbol of authority to go to your own party and say, "If I can't drag you into the Lobby, I'll give your electors a chance to get rid of you." That is this man of confidence, this triumphant hero of the negotiating table, this self-confident leader of the Conservative party. Former leaders of the Conservative party will be turning in their graves when they think of what is being done in the name of the Conservative party today.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: As a connoisseur of knock-about, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, though knock-about is not very prime ministerial. [Interruption.] I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to my constituency, where I should like him to see whether he can find one group of business people who support the position that he takes. Why does he show such contempt for business people in my constituency? Will he come to my constituency and meet the business community? Not one of them agrees with him. They enjoy his knock-about, but they do not agree with his policies.

Mr. Smith: I should be happy to go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency during a general election, when the hon. Gentleman would have to face the business people in his constituency. I hope that he would also consult the working people in his constituency—the employees as well as the managing directors.
The Prime Minister gave us a list of industrialists and bankers. I am not astonished that the chairmen of banks signed a letter that the Prime Minister sent round to them. Bankers are not noted for refusing to sign letters from Prime Ministers when they are asked if they will kindly add their signature to help the Prime Minister out in a debate


in the House of Commons. He might do better to rely on the strength of his arguments than on the fleeting support of some commercial banks.
We noticed throughout the debate constant references to managing directors, senior executives and the heads of employers' organisations. Why is no thought given to the millions of working people in this country and throughout the Community? The Conservative party no longer wants to represent people who work for a living. It no longer wants to represent working people. It is becoming the redoubt of the privileged and the elite—the people who, as wages fall for the poorest, are constantly increasing their wages, pensions, perks and benefits.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps during the general election in four years' time he will come to my constituency, which has been on the list for Labour gain in the last four elections. For almost the past 20 years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends have promised to win the next election. Ordinary people in my constituency do not want them and will not have it.

Mr. Smith: I think that we should put the matter speedily to a test. It is within the power of every Conservative Member to join us in the Lobby today to ensure that a general election is called. After all, if the Government believe that they have the right policies and the support of the people, they have nothing to fear from a general election. The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that they would be able to come back with the prospect not of three or four years in power, although that must be rather uncertain in the present situation, but with five years in power. Why do not they seize the advantage that they are being offered by the Opposition? What is troubling the Conservative party?

Sir Teddy Taylor: If the Maastricht treaty goes through, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there will be many issues to talk about in general elections?

Mr. Smith: I think there will be quite a number of issues to discuss. If the hon. Gentleman asks his constituents, he will find that many of them would like to talk to him about the imposition of VAT on heating bills.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I worked on the social charter in Brussels on behalf of the House as a member of the Select Committee on Employment. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that significant social benefits on health and safety flow from the Single European Act, which many other EC national states, such as Greece, have not implemented? Does not he believe, in all honesty, that it would be better properly to implement such measures, which will protect children, women and disabled people, than to pile Peleon on Ossa "and make the structure of the European Community's social policy so top heavy that it will bring everything down?

Mr. Smith: When the hon. Lady was taking part in these discussions in Europe she must have had daily contact with the other 11 nation states that take part in the deliberations of the Community. She must have met their Members of Parliament and leaders. She will know, as we

all know in the House, that every one of them wants the social protocol to be included in the treaty. None of them appears to have the fears and worries that are expressed by the Conservative party.
It is interesting that the Conservative party has become so blinkered on this issue that it cannot comprehend that there is any other point of view; but there is and it sometimes comes from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) asked the Prime Minister today, "What is all the fuss about?" That view is held in the Conservative party. It is held by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E.
Heath). Speaking in one of our debates, he said:
When it comes to the social chapter, I would ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government to move with extreme caution. I do not accept the figures that have been given by the Government or, in particular, by the Secretary of State for Employment on the consequences of the social chapter, and nor does the majority of people in the Community."[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 405.]
If the Prime Minister and his colleagues cannot even persuade a former Conservative Prime Minister not only of the strength of their argument but of the veracity of statistics, it is an extremely revealing insight into modern Conservative Government.
The Prime Minister must have contact with other leaders when he goes to these jolly gatherings of the European People's party. What was it that made Chancellor Kohl so disordered and confused that he has ended up being a socialist? He does not look much like a socialist to me. When Mr. Balladur comes to see the Prime Minister on Monday, will he say, "You did well, John, keeping Britain out of the social chapter"? Of course he will not. Will he say to the Prime Minister, "Good morning, comrade"? The right-wing Government of France will not withdraw from the social protocol of the European Community. The Government can issue a statement after Mr. Balladur's visit on Monday to clear the matter up. Chancellor Kohl told the German trade union conference that he would fight for the social chapter being kept in the European treaty. I wonder how he managed to do that.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.

Mr. Mark Fisher: This is an assassination.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Fisher—order.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there are 17 million unemployed people in Europe. The Prime Minister reminded us that employment in Europe used to be 60 per cent. less than in the United States; it is now 60 per cent. higher. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) reminded us that unemployment in Spain is 20 per cent. German employment is rising beyond our own. When my right hon. Friend goes to the Copenhagen summit, and when we go to Tokyo, people from Europe express concern about what they call the structural employment that has developed in Europe in the last 10 years.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that everybody else in Europe is acutely aware of the heavy and excessive non-wage social costs that are being imposed on labour in the Community, he is very much mistaken.


He would be in a minority of one in invoking all the stuff that he is now invoking and threatening to put more costs on employment if ever there were a Labour Government in this country.

Mr. Smith: I think that I can say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: his speech was a little more effective than the Prime Minister's. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I will answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman very directly, but before I do let us reflect on what result he wants in the Lobby this afternoon. I think that I am indulging in the considerable art of generosity in letting all the aspirants make their speeches now.
The Chancellor is right to say that the people of Europe are concerned about the state of their economies. Who could be anything but concerned when employment is at its current level? However, other countries in the European Community do not see the social protocol as a reason for that employment. Apart from everything else, the issue of pay is not a part of the social protocol, as I said in yesterday's debate.
The Prime Minister's case is that other countries in Europe are seeking to follow the British Conservative party's fearless way forward. I see that the Secretary of State for Employment is nodding—no doubt he will give that message to the European People's party in his little office in Smith square—[Interruption.] I notice that the Secretary of State does not like to hear such references.
If the Government were winning supporters for their view, why did the communique at the Edinburgh summit affirm that the Community would proceed with all aspects of the social chapter? The Prime Minister and his colleagues sought to argue against it, but the whole of the rest of the Community reaffirmed its commitment to the treaty's social provisions as recently as the Edinburgh summit.

Mrs. Anglea Browning: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Lady. Conservative Members want me to make progress, but their hon. Friends keep interrupting.

Mrs. Browning: I am listening with interest to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. He seems to be speaking for particular groups of people—our European partners and the politicians who represent various countries and policies. When will he speak for the people of this country?

Mr. Smith: I shall be delighted to speak to and for the people of this country in the next general election. We could all speak and make our case in the election campaign which may come. I keep being diverted from my case by irrelevant interruptions from Conservative Members. It was not I who tabled the motion of confidence; it was the Prime Minister.
The question that troubles more than the Prime Minister's rebels—it might even occur to some Cabinet Members who are sitting looking at me—is how the Prime Minister managed to get himself into this mess. After all, he must have known—as they must have known—that the House of Commons could not indefinitely be denied the opportunity to vote on whether the social chapter should be part of the treaty. The Prime Minister tried to duck and weave, to postpone and evade throughout the lengthy deliberations on the Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: As the House knows, the Prime Minister was finally cornered when the Government had to accept new clause 74 of the Bill, which became section 7 of the Act under which we are debating the motion. That was an amendment presciently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) as the ticking time bomb.
When the amendment was accepted by the Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Government, it was discounted in the usual dismissive tones of the Tory Whips and apologists—those brilliant managers of events. It was believed that with a bit more arm-twisting and a few more tearful encounters in the Whips Office, it would be all right on the night; but it was not. The ticking time bomb blew up, not only wiping the smug smiles off the faces of the Tory Whips, but destroying the Prime Minister's credibility and authority.
When it came to the crunch, the Prime Minister could not command the support of his own party. Yesterday we saw, as so often before, a Government prepared to do anything and say anything to get themselves out of their latest self-constructed humiliation. Yesterday, Government policy on the exchange rate mechanism changed between the Prime Minister's speech and the closing speech of the Secretary of State for Employment, for no other reason than to entice a Conservative Member of Parliament into the Lobby. I suppose one could say that at least that was done in the open. Who knows what shady deals were stitched up of which we do not yet know?
All those actions came from a Prime Minister who yesterday and today has had the gall to talk about cynical alliances. I sometimes think that when the Prime Minister selects a weapon, it is the boomerang which he finds most convenient.
What we witnessed yesterday and are participating in today is just the latest in the series of crisis after crisis which is the defining characteristic of this Administration. The Government are destroying our coal industry, causing chaos in schools, threatening our railway network and proposing to tax millions of families on the heating of their homes in order to pay for the feckless incompetence of the Government's economic policies. They are the very Government who threaten the public services on which millions of our fellow citizens depend. What is more, they constantly undermine our democracy by the constant arrogation of power unto themselves.
The Government have betrayed pledge after pledge and bungled policy after policy; they are now in disarray and defeat. Today, I hope that the House will vote for the Labour amendment which will give the British people the same rights and opportunities as are available throughout the rest of the European Community. By courtesy of the Prime Minister, we can do more than that. The House can express its lack of confidence in a Government who have no confidence and deserve none. I invite the House to do so.

Mr. Tom King: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on an extremely witty and entertaining speech. The House has had the privilege of hearing a distinguished


advocate displaying his skills. It does not matter what the subject is, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has only to be given a brief and then, with a few jokes and the training which he has practised in many courts in the land, he can keep the jury amused and try not to let its members come too close to the argument.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman had an unparalleled advantage. There are many of us in the House who, having made our speech and sat down, then think of all the things that we wanted to say. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had the enviable advantage of being able to return the next day to make all the comments that he wished he had made the day before. As a result, he made a much more amusing speech today than he did yesterday. However, the big gap in his lawyer's brief which shone through yesterday and today was the unfortunate way in which, in seeking to appeal to the so-called employees, the workers, he brought out the worst elements among Opposition Members as they displayed their contempt for employers.
Looking at all the Opposition Members, I know that all of them would run to a company that said that it was hoping to bring another 100 jobs into their constituencies. Are not those Opposition Members the very people who, together with employers, lobby Ministers to try to get extra grants and establish new enterprises in their constituencies? Yet those same Opposition Members are here today lampooning the leaders of British industry and the people who bring the jobs. Without good employers, there is no employment and there are no employees.
To say that there is a competition or a war taking place between employers and employees is the old language of 20 and 30 years ago—the language surrounding the old class war. It is to those old ideas that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East tries to appeal as he stands on top of the heaving mass of the Labour party —such an attempt does him no credit.
The most telling phrase in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's excellent speech was when he simply encouraged the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to visit industry and to see industry for himself. I plead guilty to having worked all my life in industry before I came to the House. I do not make my next point to the discredit of lawyers, because there are probably one or two on the Government Benches at the moment. It is an honourable profession. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech reeked of the fact that he had a brief in his hand, that he was reading it and that he did not really understand it. The most unedifying episode yesterday was when he quoted the director-general of UNICE, whom the French, rather charmingly, would call a fonctionnaire. He tried to pray him in aid against all the leaders and active employers in Europe.
We are hopeful—I believe now confident—that we are seeing a return of economic growth in this country. However, it is noticeable that some hon. Members are now behaving as if that growth is guaranteed and as if we can be certain that it will continue. Every hon. Member knows that the fight to get to that position has been tough and that the pain has been very great. We shall try to continue that growth against the trend in France and against the trend in Germany, which is in the opposite direction.

Those are two of our main markets. We should never forget that six of the eight top export markets for Britain are in the European Community and that the rest of the European Community is going into economic retreat. The present situation is fragile and anyone who takes risks with the chance of economic growth betrays their constituents.
Even Mr. Delors, to his credit, has now recognised that Europe faces a crisis of uncompetitiveness. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought out clearly, Europe used to be competitive with America, but we are now in the opposite position of being uncompetitive compared with the largest modern economy in the western world.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we now have a Prime Minister who is more devoted to manufacturing industry than any Prime Minister has been in recent times? Is my right hon. Friend aware that our right hon. Friend intends to introduce a deregulation Bill in the next Session of Parliament which will help to improve our international competitiveness?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making two extremely important points. He and I share an interest in one particular manufacturing industry which we both represent in the House. I share his views on the matter.
Ten years ago, I was Secretary of State for Employment and I went to the Social Affairs Council. Europe then faced a crisis of rising unemployment. I shall remind the House who the other members of that Council were; many of the names will be familiar to hon. Members. There was Mr. Pierre Bérégovoy of France, socialist. There was Mr. Gianni De Michelis of Italy, socialist. There was Mr. Ruairi Quinn of Ireland, socialist. We had the German Minister of Labour, who was a trade unionist. We had Christian Democrats and myself, a Conservative Minister. When I first went to the Social Affairs Council, all the issues about which the House is now talking were on the table. There was paternity law, the Vredeling directive and the working hours directive. Initially my colleagues, certainly the socialist Ministers, were in favour of those proposals, but, as we discussed the matter further and as unemployment increased in their countries and across Europe, we all recognised—this was the view that we as Conservatives already took—that we simply could not afford to add extra costs to employers and that if we did, we would, in the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, betray the working people of Europe. It is no good making tub-thumping speeches as though employees will not have their interests best protected by worthy and responsible employers.
After I had listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East yesterday, I left the Chamber. I had listened to him reading his brief about what was supposed to be the view of people in European industry. I advise him to leave now because he will not like the next bit when I tell him something about industry. I went to a meeting to discuss investment in this country. I talked to a Japanese and I talked to a British company that has investment in France where, sadly, with the fall in the economy and with the sharp recession, employers find that every redundancy costs them £25,000. Many might say that that is socially sensible and desirable. Many might think how wonderful it is that everyone who loses a job gets that amount. However, an employer starting a new business and wondering whether he can afford to take on


an extra employee will know that he is putting his head into that noose. How will that encourage growth in employment?

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is so difficult to make individuals redundant in France that, by contrast, people often have to close down the entire company, thus making unemployed people whom they would not otherwise wish to make unemployed? The net result is higher unemployment than we have in this country and unemployment that is rising rapidly.

Mr. King: In that one sentence, my hon. Friend has shown that she knows considerably more about employment problems in Europe than does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. What she has said is precisely correct. Sadly, in one case about which I heard yesterday, that is precisely what happened. The company has gone bankrupt since it cannot afford to keep the people it would like to keep because of the huge costs of redundancy for the people it is necessary to ask to leave to slim down the business. The reality is that the social charter would be a disaster at this time for our country. That is why in the interests not of employers, but of jobs and employment in this country, I strongly support the position of my right hon. Friend and the Government.
I shall address one word to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have serious reservations about the issue. They have made their point very clear in these debates. Some of them, tragically, made their views known in the Lobbies last night. That situation is now past. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on the radio this morning, as other hon. Members may have done. The choice now is not the option of stopping Maastricht. The choice is clear, however much the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East may avoid coming directly to the point. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will deal with this when he winds up. Were, by any awful chance, the Government to lose the vote today, were Her Majesty to grant a dissolution and were, by some even more awful mischance, the Labour party to be elected, I take it that we could assume that Labour would then speed to the ratification of the Maastricht treaty with the social chapter.

Mr. George Robertson: indicated assent.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman kindly nods his head. That shows clearly that there are now two choices before the House. The choice is either the Maastricht treaty with the social chapter or the Maastricht treaty without the social chapter. I emphasise the point again because in the noise, not all hon. Members may have heard it. I say again, in case any of my hon. Friends think that there is one last squeeze of the lemon in this situation, that the only choice is to vote on the amendment with the Government and on the main question with the Government. That is the only way in which we can protect our constituents and those in jobs, and that is the best chance for the economic recovery to go forward. That gives the best chance for good government and future stability for our country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is nearly 11 o'clock—under the rules governing our proceedings on a Friday, the point at which I must ask you, as I asked you at 9.35 am, whether. The

Foreign Secretary has requested to make a statement on the important and sensitive negotiations that were concluded yesterday in Baghdad by Dr. Rolf Ekeus on behalf of the United Nations, which resulted in a compromise, and on whether such compromise would include any alleviation of sanctions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have received no request from a Minister to make a statement on anything.

11 am

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is always interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), although I must say that I found the right hon. Gentleman's comments on bankruptcy somewhat odd coming from the mouth of someone who was for a long time a member of a Government who have presided over the highest level of bankruptcies that this nation has seen in the past half century. I also wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the social chapter, as most of his arguments about why we should not adopt it were completely irrelevant to its terms.
Ostensibly, we are here today to debate the social chapter. My party's position on the social chapter has been clear. It is the subject of a manifesto commitment. That position remains as I described it to the House yesterday, and I have no particular desire to repeat it today. The Government's attempt to build the social chapter up into a great socialist engine that will roll over the British economy and British jobs may convince Conservative Members but it will not convince anyone else.

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress first.
It is important that Britain should be aware of the kind of industrial base that we want to build—an industrial base that will produce quality goods in world markets, based on high investment, high value added and on a work force that is valued. That is the place for Europe and it is the place for Britain. The Government seem to want Britain to turn into a low-cost economy. I can tell them only that, if that happens, we shall be creating not a sweatshop economy—I do not go along with that assertion—but an economy that has to compete not with the best in the world but with other low-cost economies such as those emerging in eastern Europe and the far east. Those other low-cost economies will be far more effective than ours, and the result will be economic decline. That is not what I seek and it is not what is sought in the social chapter. Britain should value its work force; we should be engaged in the production of quality goods through a quality work force.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was entirely right: the social chapter is no more than a series of broad aspirations. It represents little advance on the social chapter of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act under the premiership of Baroness Thatcher.
If we vote against the social chapter, we shall be excluding ourselves from the shaping of a European institution. The Prime Minister's arguments yesterday about Britain needing to be at the heart of Europe are belied by his requirement that we leave a European institution. To see what happens to European institutions


that are shaped without British influence, the House need look no further than the common agricultural policy. We chose to be out of the CAP; it was shaped without us. Today, we pay the price for that. That is exactly what will happen with the social chapter.
I see that the Prime Minister has left once again, so I shall say this to the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary made it clear on the "Today" programme this morning—to be fair, he has made it clear on every occasion—that last night's vote was not, as the Prime Minister sought to claim yesterday, about ratification. The right hon. Gentleman said quite clearly that it was "about the social chapter". I quote his words precisely. He and the Prime Minister know beyond peradventure that, right from the start, the Liberal Democrats have said privately, as we have said publicly, that, although the Government may always count on our votes if ratification is at risk, they can never count on our votes in support of the social chapter opt-out.
In the light of those public statements, our manifesto commitment and private confirmation of that position given months ago, right at the start of the process, for the Prime Minister to pretend otherwise is a discreditable misrepresentation of what he knows to be the truth.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I think not. The right hon. Gentleman is not tackling the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put to him. We understand that, following the right hon. Gentleman's fierce criticisms of the social chapter at the end of 1991, his views have undergone a sea change and he now supports it. Therefore, by his lights—which we think were mistaken—he was justified in voting for the Labour amendment yesterday. But when that amendment was defeated, the question was not whether the social chapter should be included—

Mr. Ashdown: Yes it was.

Mr. Hurd: No. The question then became whether we should be able to proceed to ratification. That was the essence of the second vote and, by his conduct in that vote, the right hon. Gentleman showed that his aim was neither the inclusion of the social chapter nor ratification but simply to embarrass the Government.

Mr. Ashdown: God forbid that I should ever seek to embarrass the Government. The Foreign Secretary is wrong, and he knows that he is wrong. Let me make it clear to him. I asked the Minister who was present during my speech to tell me what we were voting for in the first and second votes last night. I asked whether we were voting on the social chapter, as the Government were trying to persuade their rebels we were, or for ratification. Needless to say, the Minister completely failed to answer. Why? Because the Government's game throughout has been to send two different messages, on this question as on so much else. This goes to the heart of the fraudulence and weakness of their position. The Government sought to tell their own rebels that yesterday's debate was about the social chapter, while portraying it to us as about ratification. If it was about ratification, what are we doing discussing the social chapter today? It was not about ratification. The ratification of the Maastricht treaty was

never at risk last night. What was at risk last night was our inclusion in the social chapter and the rights that it would provide for British citizens.

Mr. James Wallace: Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that the real test that should be applied to the Foreign Secretary's intervention is this: if, by two votes the other way, the Labour amendment had been carried last night and the substantive motion had been amended, would the Government have supported that motion and proceeded to implement it?

Mr. Ashdown: My hon. Friend asks whether, had the votes gone the other way, ratification would have been damaged. Of course it would not. We know that that is not the real reason why we are here this morning. The real reason is that the Prime Minister's strategy has totally failed. The Prime Minister has failed to provide a lead to his party and to the country. He has been more concerned to behave towards his party as a Government Whip than towards his nation as its Prime Minister and leader. That has been the Prime Minister's fatal mistake. In trying to send two different messages, the right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to portray Europe in all its positive aspects, which is what would have been necessary to enable him to carry the majority for Maastricht that exists in the House. He said one thing to his European partners, while pretending something totally different on his return to the House.
Time and again, the Prime Minister has ducked the issue and avoided the challenge. The issue of the social chapter need not have arisen now; he could have faced it months ago or weeks ago. But the Prime Minister delayed and delayed and has brought the matter before us at the very last moment. The only way that he can now get his way and get the treaty through is by staking his personal authority and the Government's survival. There you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is what we now have. The triumph of the Prime Minister's return from Maastricht with the opt out turned into a crisis of his own authority. That is the ball and chain which started off as game, set and match. The Prime Minister's problem is that he will not provide a lead or say where he wants to go. He will not give the nation or his own party the lead that is necessary.

Mr. Riddick: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The serious point—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not throw stones if he is living in a glass house. I hope that his driving lessons are going well.
I have a serious point for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) which I do not believe the Opposition Benches have addressed. Why is the right hon. Member for Yeovil so ready to reject the very serious objections to the social chapter by the CBI, the engineering employers and all the other employers? That is a very serious point. Why does the right hon. Gentleman reject those objections?

Mr. Ashdown: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I believe them to be wrong in this matter. It is as simple as that.
Let me explain this to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). Throughout Europe, this issue is not seen in the terms in which the Government have persuaded some members of industry to see it. It is not seen as a threat to jobs. If it is such a threat to jobs, why is it that this


country over the past four years, without any of those social provisions, experienced the highest unemployment in the European Community? Comments from the Conservative party about unemployment come ill when the Government have presided over the largest rise in unemployment that we have ever seen.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this will be the last time that I will give way until I have made some progress.

Mr. Colvin: Which is the biggest threat to Westland —the social chapter or the 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Gentleman's party?

Mr. Ashdown: As someone who has worked in Westland. who knows the company and lives among it, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Westland has nothing to fear from the social chapter because Westland, as a good employer, already far exceeds the terms of the social chapter. That is one of the reasons why that firm and its products have been such a success.
We now see revealed the truth of this matter. The purpose of the opt out was, of course, nothing to do with Britain and everything to do with the divisions in the Conservative party. That is the truth which is now revealed. The Prime Minister returned from Europe with a piece of paper which he hoped would provide peace in his time in a party riven by civil war. However, the Prime Minister has learnt that appeasing those who oppose him only encourages them further. He now has a party which is so riven by civil war, so infected by its own internal enmities, that frankly it can no longer provide the effective united Government which this country needs.
Therefore, we are asked today to give the Government our confidence. We are asked to give them confidence when they have so comprehensively failed to provide leadership, not just to the country, but also to Europe in respect of the crucial issue of Bosnia. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who yesterday, from the mouth of the Prime Minister, said that they were not prepared to take action to prevent Sarajevo falling into the hands of the Serbs.
I dare say that what is happening in Bosnia today will have more effect on the shape of Europe than the entire Maastricht treaty which we have been negotiating for the past six months. The Government have totally failed to provide that leadership. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have betrayed their election promises less than a year after they made them. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have sought to close down the coal industry.
In addition, we are asked to give confidence to a Government who have been revealed as indulging in duplicity and deceit on a grand scale on the issue of Matrix Churchill. We are asked to give confidence to a Government over whom hangs the odour of decay and, I am bound to say, of sleaze. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have damaged not only themselves and their own reputation, but the reputation of politics and the institution of our democracy.
Let the Prime Minister be under no illusions. When he forces his colleagues into the Division Lobby this

afternoon to vote for his motion and for him, they will not be expressing confidence in him; they will be expressing no confidence in their capacity to hold their seats under his leadership. At the end of the day, that is the fact of this afternoon's vote and that is the fact which will return and, in the end, do for him.

Sir Peter Emery: It is intriguing that the support for the Liberal Democrats seems to come more from the extreme members of the Labour party than from anyone else—

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: No, just sit down—[interruption.]

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure who commenced his address to the House by speaking to the wall opposite and who then turned round, and spoke directly across the Floor of the House, neglecting the fact that you are presiding over these proceedings from the Chair—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I need no help from the hon. Gentleman or from any hon. Member in respect of whom to call and how they address the Chair.

Sir Peter Emery: As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not speak very often in the House. I speak only when there is someting that has to be said. What we have to say today is that the Government Benches absolutely and completely support the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Government and the Prime Minister's policies. That has to be said and clearly understood.
As it is perhaps the right thing to do according to the traditions of this House, I will refer to the speech made by the previous speaker, the leader of the Liberal Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The right hon. Gentleman suggested a criticism on Bosnia. I ask him directly across the Floor of the House now whether he is suggesting that we should today put troops into Bosnia to be shot at by all three sides and come back in British body bags. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting?

Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that he already has troops in Bosnia to be shot at by all three sides. They are being shot at by all three sides and, as the weeks and months pass, he will see that they will be in an increasingly dangerous position. I have said, and I continue to believe, that what we should have done and what we should now do, is put sufficient forces into Bosnia to make them capable of doing the job which I believe they should be there to do. They would be much safer if that were the case.

Sir Peter Emery: That means that the right hon. Gentleman would put British troops in to shoot at Serbs., Croats or anyone else who is behaving in a way of which the right hon. Gentleman does not approve. That is what he is really saying and the country should understand that properly.
In the same way, we need to understand from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil that he believes that the Westland aircraft company in his constituency would benefit from the social chapter. He referred to his experience with that company. However, I must tell him that that is not what the management says today. The right hon. Gentleman is out of date, as he always is, with regard to what is happening in the country as a whole.
The right hon. Member said that the social chapter does not seek economic decline. Of course that is right. However, the economic decline comes along because people are looking further than the immediate effect of the social chapter. It is not their wish for economic decline; it is because of some of the social structures that would have to be imposed on industry that that economic decline would come about.
We find it very strange that the leader of the Liberal Democrats suggests that he is still in favour of Maastricht when he had the simple opportunity last night to vote for a motion which would have ensured that Maastricht would go forward and be signed. He cannot in any way defend the situation that he tries to put forward in the debate today.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one bonus that came out of yesterday's events is that the Union has been strengthened? The Ulster Unionists actually voted with the Conservatives on those two votes yesterday and will do so again. Is it not time that we stopped pandering to Dublin? Is it not time that we stopped pandering to the Social Democratic and Labour party, which, of course, always votes against us in the House? Is not that a real bonus for the Union as a whole?

Sir Peter Emery: I do not need to go further than make it absolutely clear that the Procedure Committee, under my chairmanship, has recommended for some time that Northern Ireland should have a Select Committee dealing with its affairs.
What is such a shame about today's debate is the knockabout speech from the Leader of the Opposition. He is able to make a much better speech than that which he made today. He treated the House to nothing but a series of jokes that were prepared last night while burning the midnight oil. They do not cure the problems that the House is dealing with—the social chapter and the effect on the economy.
I never expected that today's debate on the confidence motion would actually have to be brought by the action of some of my own colleagues. That is a depressing and despondent factor. I find it very strange I have seen some people on my side over the past months negotiating nearly in public with the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip in order to defeat the Government. That is something which I never expected to see from Conservative Members. That has to be recorded absolutely.

Mr. David Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.

Sir Peter Emery: I have given way to the Liberal Democrats once, so the hon. Gentleman can let me get on.
What we have to see absolutely clearly in the House, and which cannot be repeated enough during today's debate, is that there are only two options that—

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman would like to sit down and let me finish the sentence, I might think about it.
What is clear beyond peradventure is that there can be one of only two outcomes: Maastricht without the social chapter or Maastricht with the social chapter. There is no alternative. My hon. Friends must understand that. If they cannot see that today's debate has only those two options, they cannot see anything about the problems that the House has to deal with.

Mr. Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman finished his sentence?

Sir Peter Emery: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis: It was a bit remiss of the right hon. Gentleman to link my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and myself with the Liberal Democrats.
However, the serious matter is that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of the Select Committee for Northern Ireland. As a distinguished Member and Chairman of the Procedure Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he obtained that information?

Sir Peter Emery: I have only repeated what is known fact which has been on the record on more than one occasion. The Procedure Committee has recommended a Select Committee for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lewis: Has it made a decision?

Sir Peter Emery: That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman must listen. I have said only that that is indeed what we have recommended.
I now turn to one aspect of the social chapter that has not been considered, and that is the effect on small industries. In my constituency, the vast majority of employment is provided by companies with fewer than 20 employees. It is those people who would be most affected by the regulations that would come from the social chapter. It is those smaller industries, which in time become big industries, which would most oppose the regulations in order to go forward in their own way.
It is interesting to record that the Leader of the Opposition said that no thought was given to working people. How wrong he was in that statement. It is in order to create jobs for working people that we are concerned with not having the social chapter, which works against the creation of jobs. It is to ensure that more jobs, not fewer, are available for the benefit of working people.
It is not, after all, just the industrialists. They, strangely enough, are the people who help to create jobs. They are the people who are likely to be able to provide employment. They are the people who are saying that the social chapter will not allow them to do what they want in creating expansion.
Therefore, it is also for working people to realise that the social chapter, although it might provide—let us be quite clear—some extra conditions in the long term for the benefit of people at work, will certainly not go further than


the regulations that we already have. In most aspects, we are well ahead of most countries in Europe, and we see European countries backing off madly from their initial agreement to the social chapter. Let us make certain that we do not have an extra millstone or burden around the neck of small businesses and small industry.
As an aside, I was interested to hear one of my colleagues last night say that all this would not have happened and that it would have been all right if we could have had a referendum. I thought that that issue was dead. I thought that both Houses of Parliament had buried it some time ago. In my constituency, we have really had a referendum. At the election, there was a candidate who stood with only one policy, and that was that Maastricht should be defeated. I am delighted to tell the House that he not only lost his deposit but only just defeated the raving loony green giant candidate.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Other hon. Members want to speak, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harvey: Did not the right hon. Gentleman go around his constituency at the election telling people that he was opposed to a federal Europe? Did he not tell the listeners of Devon Air only this week that he is in favour of the Maastricht treaty precisely because it will create a federal Europe?

Sir Peter Emery: No, I did not. One has only to look at me to know that I am not in favour of a federal Europe, and the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as anybody else. [Laughter.] I am interesting, but many hon. Members want to speak.
The criticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Labour party is unjust. We have seen firm decisions and firm decision making. We have seen a Prime Minister who has stood all the criticism that was made when we had to get inflation down. We must think of the criticism at the time that that policy should be abandoned—that policy which is now the launching pad for our growing economy at this moment at the end of recession. If there ever was a quick, sound and sensible decision, it was that which was made yesterday—when we did not obtain what was wanted—that we should discuss this motion today to get Maastricht settled and to go forward. This is a matter of sound, sensible and firm government from the Prime Minister, whom I am delighted to be able to support.
Today, it is necessary to ensure that we have a resounding vote in support of the Prime Minister's motion and a resounding defeat of the Labour party amendment. The Conservative party will then be able to leave for the summer recess with its tail up, in the knowledge that it is beginning to—[Laughter.] The Opposition may not like that. That is not what they want, of course. They do not want to see economic recovery that will bring success to this country, because that will lead to a success for the Conservative party.
We are set on a policy of success for the country—a success which will reflect properly on the success of the policy that the Prime Minister and the Government have pursued. I am proud to support it.

Mr. Tony Benn: When the speech of the Prime Minister and that of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) are read and considered for the study of history, they will rank with some of the greatest speeches ever made in the House.

Sir Peter Emery: Thank you for that.

Mr. Benn: For example, when a Bill was introduced to abolish the practice of sending boys up chimneys in the 19th century, exactly the same speeches as those from the right hon. Gentleman were made. It was claimed that the Bill would destroy employment for young boys, who were doing a very good job going up chimneys.
When Samuel Plimsoll, who was a Member of Parliament, introduced legislation to put an end to the coffin ships by introducing the Plimsoll line, the then Prime Minister could have quoted "The Shipping Gazette", which described Samuel Plimsoll as a terrorist. That was the word used by the employers about any suggestion that social provision should be introduced to try to prevent thousands of sailors from dying in unsafe ships.
One could argue that the social chapter began with the Lloyd George Budget, which introduced national insurance. That was seen as a direct threat to employers, and right-wing Conservatives said that they would not stick the stamps on their domestic servants' cards because that practice threatened the women who worked for them.
I am looking forward to studying with great care the speeches that have been made on this issue, because they will rank with some of the most reactionary statements ever made.
Although I am not here to talk about the merits of the matter, it never seems to have occurred to the Prime Minister that if people are paid better wages, they buy goods from other people and that creates jobs.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: No, I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman bumbled on so ineffectively that he must allow me to develop my argument.
One man's wage increase is another man's job. That is what improved conditions would provide.

Mr. Hurd: rose—

Mr. Benn: If the Foreign Secretary is about to intervene, I look forward to another radical intervention in the best 18th century style.

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure how far the right hon. Gentleman would carry his argument about chimney sweeps. Does he, for example, feel that it is all part of the righteous march of social progress to have a working time directive that would prevent boys from delivering newspapers in the morning? Would he regard that as an inexorable part of his objective?

Mr. Benn: The eight-hour day was introduced as a result of a campaign by the Trade Union Congress 100 years ago. By his casual intervention, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he is still living in the 19th century.
The TUC objective was eight hours for our work, eight hours for our sleep and eight hours for our recreation. Nowadays, it is thought that trade unionists must not,


under any circumstances, have any role in deciding working conditions. We are told that we should listen to Sir Denys Henderson and all the employers of Europe telling us what to do. That is the most extraordinary example of the class war, but I will not go into it now because I am considering another issue today.
The issue before us is that if the House approves the motion, the Maastricht treaty will be ratified—for all I know, over the weekend. That will be achieved by telling certain Conservatives and others such as the leader of the Irish, the right hon. and devoted Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that if they do not go along with that, the Prime Minister will go to the Queen and destroy Parliament. There will then be an election.
I ask myself whether that is a credible threat. The Prime Minister boasted that he received the biggest popular vote of any general election. I do not know whether he is right, but I presume that he would not have said it if his officials had not given him the figures.
The Government are 15 months old. Does anyone really believe that the Queen would say to the Prime Minister that he could destroy Parliament because of a difference over the social chapter? Does anyone believe that? It is not a credible threat.

Mrs. Currie: Yes, it is.

Mr. Benn: No, it is not. I shall cite some helpful examples in a moment because I have had a bit of experience of a Prime Minister who threatened to resign. Harold Wilson did just that, and I shall tell the House exactly what happens when a Prime Minister is so foolish as to threaten.
If the pro-federalists are right, we are discussing how we will be governed in Europe for hundreds of years to come. That will be decided on the question whether there will be an election on some marginal improvement in social conditions. I do not believe that the social chapter amounts to very much. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made that clear.
The Prime Minister is threatening the destruction of an elected Parliament—and I must now describe that right hon. Gentleman as a Euro rebel because he is rebelling against the vote of the House last night; the Euro rebel sits at No. 10—and threatens the destruction of his party to stop the social chapter getting through. The consequence will be that the European union will come into effect.
I do not want to offend anyone in my speech, and the point I want to concentrate on is whether the means adopted represents the right way to decide how Europe should develop. There are people who are passionately in favour of the Maastricht treaty and I respect their view. Some think that it represents a defence against socialism. Other colleagues in the Labour party believe that it might advance socialism. Some believe that the result will be a federal, centralised Europe, while others believe that subsidiarity will flow from it.
There are many different interpretations of the social chapter. Some are in favour of it; some are against it—all for different reasons. Some people do not like foreigners. I am a European. I was born a European and I will die a European. I do like foreigners. I could hardly do anything else. My wife is an American and my son has married a woman who is half Jewish and half Bengali. I have two

little part Bengali grandchildren, so I find it difficult to take what one might call the "Wolverhampton" view that foreigners start at Dover and that some have already got a bit too close for comfort.
If I were a Frenchman, a Belgian or a German, I would be just as passionately opposed to the Maastricht treaty because it strips all of us, not just the people of this country, of the right to sack the people who make the laws. That is what it is all about. Why should Jacques Delors listen to a word that is said to him by anyone in Europe when he cannot be removed in a general election? That is the key issue.
I am a democrat. I have always seen this issue as a democratic issue, not a nationalist one. Having discussed for two years how Europe should be governed, is it not now clear that, today, we are discussing how Britain should be governed? I want to discuss the Maastricht treaty in terms of the light it has thrown on the way in which the British constitution works before we ratify that treaty.
What is the relationship between the people, Parliament and the prerogative? Those are the three ingredients in our constitution. People will be aware that the Queen in Parliament is sovereign. That is the jargon that we are still expected to accept. Let us examine what role Parliament and Government believe that the people should have. The answer is absolutely none.
At the time of the general election, the Maastricht treaty had not been published in English, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has told me that the social chapter has never been made widely available. There is a view—I am afraid that it is shared by those on my Front Bench, which I greatly regret—that the people have no right whatever to have anything to do with deciding whether we are governed in a new way under the European union.
I have asked many Ministers, including, quite properly, the Foreign Secretary, about the right of the people to decide. "Oh no," he said, "it is for Parliament to decide". Parliament did decide last night against the Government; otherwise we would not be having today's debate. The House knew full well that was at stake. Conservative Members who voted against the Government last night knew exactly what they were doing. But what has happened? When Parliament does decide, the Prime Minister pulls out his final weapon, the prerogative of dissolution. Not only have the people and Parliament been kept out of the decision-making process, but now the Queen has been wheeled out. I intend to say something about the Queen because she is part of our constitution. When people read today's Hansard, they will find that the jocular exchanges between Front-Bench speakers are not as interesting as those parts of the debate that explain to future generations how Britain went into a union.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is surely making the speech that he would have made if the House had come to a resolution last night and the Government had, in some way, decided to invoke the prerogative to overrule that or go against it. That is the thesis which he contests. But, of course, what happened last night was quite different. The House did not come to any conclusion.

Mr. Benn: Of course the House came to a decision. That was why the Cabinet met at 7 o'clock last night, to


consider what would happen when the Government were defeated. Earlier this morning I quoted what the Prime Minister said in yesterday's debate. He said:
The treaty in the Maastricht Bill—the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given to the Act, so the treaty will be ratified."—
There is no question about what section 7 says—
Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 526.]
The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that if it all went wrong he would simply ratify. After the vote last night, in the traditional statement after a Government defeat, the Prime Minister announced a vote of confidence, which meant, "I will go to the Queen and ask the Queen to destroy the Parliament."
I am genuinely trying to illuminate rather than exacerbate the argument so that people reading Hansard may know how we got into this position. The answer is simple. The Maastricht treaty was signed under the royal prerogative. The Government decided to keep secret the treaty's provisions, which could have been distributed to every household, as they were in Denmark, during the election.
The Whips operate through the royal prerogative of patronage. My hon. Friends who were in the Whips Office know that there are Labour ways of twisting arms. In most Whips Offices it is clear, I understand—it never happened to me—that the prospect of promotion to the Front Bench is inhibited if one is not always in the Government Lobby. That is because of the royal prerogative of patronage. Older Members—again, not me—who are waiting for peerages are made to know that peerages are not so readily available to those who decline to support the Government.
Patronage is a cancer in our democratic society, and everybody knows it. Having got the Bill through the House of Commons, the Government sent it to the House of Lords, and everybody got there by the royal prerogative; one cannot be made a peer without letters patent. Then they brought in peers from foreign hideouts. Did anybody honestly think that a House made up like that would be in favour of elections or in favour of the social chapter? I believe that yesterday the Lords voted in much the same way as they voted on the chimney boys 100 years ago. They were not prepared to give their estate servants better conditions.

Mrs. Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I am developing an argument and I should like to finish it. I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment with such pleasure that she will be suprised.
Another person whose authority comes from the royal prerogative is Lord Rees-Mogg, who has never been elected by anybody. He is a Conservative peer. He has decided to go to the judges. How did they get there? They got there by the royal prerogative. Lord Rees-Mogg rang me up, and. I hope that I am not breaking any confidences when I say that I have doubts about what he told me. He said, "I, Lord Rees-Mogg, am protecting Parliament from the prerogative." I hope that his call was not secret. If it was, I should apologise, but I doubt whether I will.
As I have said, after yesterday's vote the Prime Minister made the massive statement, "We are going to ratify." How do we ratify? We ratify by the royal prerogative. The Prime Minister has said, "If you don't do what we say we

will dissolve Parliament by the royal prerogative." I shall complete my next sentence, and then the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) can come in and muddy the waters and I shall do the best I can to clear them up.
This whole story has revealed not only the nature of the European union but the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the way that this country is governed by a Crown, a Prime Minister with Crown powers, a House that depends on Crown powers and on the patronage of those with Crown powers, and the threat of elections. If the hon. Lady understands that, I shall be happy to let her intervene.

Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, all treaties are signed and ratified by the royal prerogative. What does he think makes this treaty so different? The Ponsonby rules mean, and have done for the whole of this century, that treaties are not ratified until they are approved by the House. Many of the 70 votes that we have had on this have already done that, and today's vote will do the same.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so alarmed and concerned about privilege, how come he accepted the great honour of membership of Her Majesty's Privy Council and exercises the additional honour that that gives him in the House of being called in debate before the rest of us?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady might have considered that, as I am the longest serving Opposition Member, I may have caught the Speaker's eye. One of my grandchildren who saw "Jurassic Park" said to me, "What do you call a dinosaur with one eye?—Doyathinkhesaurus". That is the question that every hon. Member must consider when he looks towards the Chair. I asked to be excused from taking the Privy Councillor's oath, but when it was explained to me that if I did not I could not perform the function of Postmaster-General, I capitulated, as we all did.
When I took the oath at the beginning of this Parliament, I said, "As a dedicated republican, I solemnly swear…". My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, "1 solemnly swear that I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax." There are some concessions that we have to make, and everybody should know that.
Let us examine the final prerogative of dissolution. The Prime Minister was very careful not to say that the Queen had agreed. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has had later news from "Buck Pal" than I have. The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet would decide to seek it. In 1969, when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and "In Place of Strife" got into some difficulties, he announced that he would be off, like the present Prime Minister, to dissolve Parliament. There was some discussion in the parliamentary Labour party as to whether that was the final word. Douglas Houghton, who was the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, said, "If Harold goes off to the palace, I will follow him in a taxi to say that we have another candidate." That was Jim Callaghan. When the news reached Harold that Douglas Houghton would be on his way, Harold decided not to go.
If the Prime Minister went to resign, what would the Queen say? She would say, "My dear Prime Minister, I read your speech with great interest. You had the greatest popular vote in the whole of history 14 months ago. Isn't there somebody who could take on the responsibilities that you regard as so burdensome? What about that nice man


at No. 11? Wouldn't he be the man to take it on?" Many Conservatives, faced with suicide, would be in favour of the man from No. 11, not because they would prefer him, but because their future would depend on his forming a Government.
I shall give another example of dissolution because I have long experience of these matters. In January 1974, the whole shadow Cabinet was invited to lunch with the Iranian ambassador. That was before the Shah fell, so it was quite respectable, or so we were assured. I found myself sitting next to Sir Michael Adeane, the Queen's private secretary. This was during the miners' strike when nobody knew quite what was going to happen. I said to him, "You tell me what's going to happen. If the Prime Minister"—that was the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—"asks for a dissolution, does the Queen have to grant it?" Sir Michael Adeane, who, like all palace officials, was very naive, said, "That is an interesting question. We have been discussing it all morning at the palace." So I went home and began writing my election address because I knew that, if the palace was expecting it, the election was coming.
Therefore, I tell those who are doubtful about the treaty not to assume that there will necessarily be an election if they vote against the Government this afternoon. The Government could make another change. They could say, "We have thought about it again." After all, the Prime Minister is always thinking about things again. They could say that they would ratify with the social chapter or that they would have a referendum. They could decide not to ratify at all because Sir Denys Henderson has told them that that would be a pit of despair into which we would all fall. It does not follow that there will be an election.
The real question is the one to which I have referred when I have addressed the Speaker, twice now: what role does Parliament have in the scenario containing the royal prerogative? The answer is that we are just spectators. We have no role. If we vote against the Government, as we did last night—let us not forget that the Government have an overall majority—tomorrow the pistol will be at the head of those who disagree.
I will tell the House what I think, and I think it with great regret. I think that we are the witnesses of the death of democracy in Britain. We are witnessing that death because the House has lost the will to assert its authority as a legislative chamber. There are many advantages to being a Member of Parliament. One gets on "Newsnight" every now and again and one is treated with great respect at public dinners and so on. However, we do not want to exercise the power that we were elected to exercise. That applies to all parties.
Once we destroy democracy in Britain, we shall pave the way for the federal Europe because, if there is no effective democracy in Britain, Europe will say, "Look at the House of Commons! It didn't seem to care very much, so we'll run Britain." Then we shall be back to the Holy Roman Empire and all that.
I say that with regret because I am a passionate believer in the House. I may be one of the last few people who think that coming here is the greatest honour that one can have. Being in the House is a greater honour than a peerage, and I have proved that. When we get here, we must speak our mind—even if we upset the Front Bench or the Whips—

without, I hope, discourtesy to anyone and, when we come to vote, we vote for what we think is right. That is my conviction. I believe that a House of Commons that did not have within it enough people to do that would become the handmaiden of the Prime Minister of the day and would be even more easily rolled over by the Commissioners and the central bankers.
People may think it strange that I have referred several times in the past few days to the 17th century and the Bill of Rights, but it is because the prerogative is now rampant again. We thought that we had dealt with that then, but it has come back because of Maastricht. Every law to which I adhered when I was on the Council of Ministers—I adhered to many of them—was by the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative takes precedence again.
I think that the House is dying. I know that that may seem a strange thing to say, but if we ratify that will be another nail in our coffin because, whatever we decide to do, even if we decided to defy a Government next time round, it would not be effective because the power would have passed to others.
That is my opinion. I put it forward, with respect, to the House. I presume that party loyalty is so strong that the government will get away with it and carry their bloodstained banner into the ratification chamber and will then say that Parliament had agreed with them. Parliament did not agree with them. Last night, without the threat of dissolution, Parliament turned them down and the Government will reverse that decision by improper pressure deriving from an undemocratic constitution—the use of the Queen to get their way over an elected House. That is a terrible tragedy for the Parliament in which we serve.

Mr. Paul Channon: No one would deny that the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was both entertaining and perceptive. I, for one, would not argue with him about dissolution, although he used the precedent of January 1974 when, as he pointed out, there was a dissolution. He went home and wrote his election address. and the Labour party went on to win the election. His theory that the Queen will not grant dissolution might be conceivable, but it is highly improbable. I would not advise my hon. Friends to bank on it, although it gave me some moments of pleasure when I thought of that possibility.
At the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman, quite understandably and rightly, turned it into an attack on the Maastricht treaty as a whole and we all know that he is among the most distinguished of those right hon. Members who are opposed to it. Yes, many people oppose it, but the House knows perfectly well that in reality there is a majority in favour of the treaty. That was clearly shown on both Second and Third Readings of the Bill and on many other occasions during its passage through the House.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is very much a democrat and I should have thought that he would accept the will of the House of Commons—

Mr. Ian Taylor: And the House of Lords.

Mr. Channon: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will pay so much attention to the House of Lords, but that is his prerogative. Of course, he must not


say that Lord Rees-Mogg is a Conservative Peer—he sits on the Cross Benches. I used to know Lord Rees-Mogg when he was a Conservative. Indeed, I appointed him chairman of the Arts Council. I thought that he was rather good. That is a royal prerogative—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and I must not make too much fuss about patronage. He has already had to make rather a lame defence of the privileges of a Privy Councillor. He was right about that, but not about much else.
It is clear that both Houses of Parliament are in favour of the Maastricht treaty. There was a question over whether or not Parliament was in favour of the social protocol. We experienced the most extraordinary events last night. The Government won the first vote either on Madam Speaker's casting vote or by a majority of one, depending on which mathematician counts the figures. In any event, the Labour party's amendment, which said that the Government
should not deposit the Articles of Ratification of the Treaty of European Union … until … it intends to adopt the Protocol on Social Policy
was defeated. The House then voted down the Government's motion, which merely asked:
That this House, in compliance with requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.
Everyone knows that section 7 provides that until some resolution has been adopted, the Government cannot ratify the treaty. With respect to the Liberal Democrats and their leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who spoke earlier, it was wrong for him to imply that that motion had nothing to do with ratification—it had everything to do with ratification. He knew that if he voted against that motion the Government could not ratify the treaty. The Liberal Democrats keep telling us that they are keen on Maastricht and also on the social chapter. However, the reality of their position last night was that they prevented the Government from ratifying the treaty. The Liberal Democrats know that and they knew it last night. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it was disingenuous of him to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Alton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the Liberal Democrats have always supported the concept of the Maastricht treaty and that only the problem of linkage has prevented us from voting in the Lobby with him. By linking yesterday's vote to the social chapter—which the hon. Gentleman knows we have consistently supported—and by linking today's vote to the question of confidence, makes it untenable and impossible for Liberal Democrats to vote with the right hon. Gentleman. If there were a motion before the House today merely dealing with the issue of ratification, he knows that my party would be voting with his.

Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not the 'exact position, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out during an intervention. The question whether we should adopt the social protocol was disposed of when the Labour amendment was defeated. The House was then asked to decide, one way or another, on the simple motion:
That this House…notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.

The Liberal Democrats voted against that, as they are entitled to do. It was their decision. However, they are not entitled to say that they are going all out to ratify the Maastricht treaty, because when they had the opportunity to achieve that major, objective last night, for narrow party reasons they chose to vote down the Government's motion.
The House faces two issues this morning. The first relates to the merits of the case for the social chapter and the second to the political realities facing the House and, in particular, the Conservative party. I sometimes wish that our old friend Lord Archer were back in this House. He would find it difficult to write a thriller more amazing than the events of the last few months. Who could have imagined that we would have seen last night those Euro-sceptics who are most against ratification of the treaty join, in a way, the Labour party, in voting for an amendment to incorporate the social protocol that nearly all of them are against? I must be careful, because that is not true of them all. It is only fair to point out that one or two hon. Friends who are distinguished members of the group that opposes ratification do not think that the social chapter matters very much. I believe that I am right in saying that most of them are very much against the adoption of the social protocol. I therefore find it extraordinary that they voted in the way that they did.
As to the merits of the case, I choose to accept what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and in particular in the winding-up speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who demonstrated exactly what the social chapter would entail for the people of this country. On the merits of the case, we are on strong ground.
But let us assume for a moment that the social chapter does not matter very much. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and some of my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—said that the social chapter does not matter too much and would not make much difference. If the Government's motion is passed this afternoon, the Government will survive and presumably they will ratify the treaty without the social chapter.
The consequences if the House does -not support the Government this afternoon were best summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on television last night. He said that the dilemma that he faced was either Maastricht being ratified by a Conservative Government without the social chapter, or a general election that, in his view—and I hope that he is wrong—would bring a Conservative defeat and the return of a Labour Government who would ratify the treaty anyway, with the social chapter. Where is the merit in that for those of my hon. Friends who are against both ratification and the social chapter? That would be the worst conceivable result.
My own view is that the Maastricht treaty is not very exciting. I am not mad keen on what is proposed, but it is not as bad as all that. I take the same view of the treaty as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East takes on the social chapter. So although the treaty is not as bad as all that, it is not something to make us throw our hats over the moon with pleasure.
I remember that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought the treaty back to the House, it was thought on these Benches that he had achieved a great triumph. I have been known to tease my hon. Friend the


Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) by pointing out that on that occasion, so impressed was he by my right hon. Friend's arguments that he supported the Government. He may since have regretted doing so, because he has taken quite a different line ever since.
I accept, of course, that we have moved on from there. I admire my hon. Friends' campaign against the Bill. They are a small group, but they have fought an historic campaign which will go down in the history books. It was a remarkable way of proceeding. I am not sure that if I had been one of their number, I would have approved of voting against procedural motions and generally messing up Government business, but who knows? I do not criticise my hon. Friends for that. There is no doubt that they exposed the issues in a fashion for which the House should in some ways be grateful.
Now we come down to the basics. On what course do we want to set the country after this afternoon? That is in the hands of some of my hon. Friends in the Chamber this morning, and in the hands of others who are outside now but who I am sure will be present later.

Dr. Robert Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the campaign run by the Tory rebels was cynical? They voted for something in which none of them believes.

Mr. Channon: I do not entirely agree. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, he has always said the social chapter does not matter. He might even be mildly in favour of it, but I think I am right in saying that he is not strongly opposed to it. That is true of a number of my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is probably right to say that the majority are against it.

Mr. Cash: I think that some of my hon. Friends misunderstood the motion, which was not about the social chapter but about the protocol on social policy. I regret to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) did not know the difference between the two.

Mr. Channon: I hope and believe that I know the difference. I have the motion in front of me. However, I do not want to bandy words with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman is an expert from the Whips Office, I give way to him.

Mr. Frank Cook: I must tell the House that I am not an expert—to be an "ex" is to be a has-been and to be a "spurt" is to be a drip under pressure. I admit to neither of those propensities. Far be it from me to try to staunch the spiritual haemorrhage that is taking place in internecine fashion among the Conservatives but, if it is so treacherous for a Tory to vote for an amendment for motives other than those apparent from the Order Paper, is it not just as treacherous for the Government to seek the support of a party in exchange for an undeclared advantage that it might get at some future date?

Mr. Channon: I certainly have not used the word "treacherous". The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact

that the Ulster Unionists voted with us last night. It is up to them to say why they did so. I think that, if I were an Ulster Unionist, I should be appalled by the idea of the proposals by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) coming into effect. I should be inclined to vote with any party that was likely to stop it happening. That strikes me as nothing more than common sense. The Ulster Unionists must speak for themselves, but it seems a reasonable and understandable point of view.
I do not want to detain the House too long. We have come back to basics. If the motion is not carried today, and in spite of what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, it is highly probable—if not virtually certain—that Parliament will be dissolved. Do my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that that is desirable at the moment? On what course do we want to set the country?
The Conservatives won an extraordinarily large victory last year although it was not rewarded by as many seats as we might have expected. [Interruption.] The economy is beginning to improve. Prospects are beginning—

Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition from a sedentary position repeatedly to accuse my right hon. Friend of lying?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I did not hear any such thing, but if the hon. Member involved said it, I am sure that he will want to withdraw it.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was a liar; I said that the Government told lies during the election.

Mr. Channon: I do not want to fight the last election again. I do not think that I told a single lie during the campaign. I see no point in fighting the battles of the last election again. Indeed, I hope that we shall not have to fight those of the next election too soon.
As the economy improves, and as people realise that conditions in this country are getting better, in stark contrast to those in most of the rest of the European Community—[Interruption.] Rightly or wrongly, I happen to believe that the economy is improving. I believe that the figures bear me out. We shall discover who is right in a few months' time.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend not think that Britain has perhaps benefited hugely from the immediate impact of our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism whereas other countries in Europe are still suffering in terms of jobs and expenditure?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the ERM. He mentions it often to me in private, and I am glad that he has mentioned it in public. Perhaps unusually, I have always been against the ERM. I was against it when I was a member of the Government and I am delighted that we came out. I hope that we shall not rejoin, and certainly not for a considerable time.
This Government's fate now rests in the hands of some of my hon. Friends. I put it to them that in the long-term interests of the country it would be a disaster if they were to set us on the course of a general election, whose outcome would be uncertain, at a time when conditions are improving and when, in a few years' time, we shall be able to show the people of this country the prosperity that


we have created. By then, our reforms will have had a chance to work. The battle of Maastricht is, I believe, now over—

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Channon: No, I shall not give way as I am corning to the end of my speech.
The battle of Maastricht is now over. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider carefully the course of action that they intend to take this afternoon. I believe that the national interest requires there to be a Conservative Government for the next few years in order that we can put straight some of the many difficulties that face this country.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The assisted area status map has now been published and is available in the Vote Office. May we have a statement from the Government in which the excellent news for Dover and Deal, that they have been granted assisted area status, can be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That has nothing whatsover to do with the debate. No doubt the Minister will have heard what has been said.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall begin by using what I believe is a Yorkshire phrase —that there is nowt queerer than folk. I suspect that many people outside Parliament say that there is nowt queerer than the parliamentary procedure that we observe here.
It seems to me that the pantomime season has started early. People outside the House of Commons are rapidly losing confidence and faith not only in a faded Prime Minister but in Parliament and a failed Government. This system is seen by the people outside as farcical. We are far too removed from the reality of everyday life for the people whom we are supposed to represent. They have seen unholy alliances, backwards and forwards, through this Chamber. We see people theoretically voting in one direction when, in fact, they are voting in a different direction. The whole system is a shambles and is bringing politics and politicians into disrepute.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an interesting speech on the constitution. I know that he will wish to listen to the few remarks that I want to make on constitutional matters. Twice this week, the right hon. Gentleman invoked the Bill of Rights, article 1 and article 9. The Bill of Rights is not applicable to the Scottish people or to the Scottish nation. We had our own Claim of Right in 1688, which spelt out clearly the sovereignty of the Scottish people. It is a tradition in our constitutional law, which stretches back many centuries before that. The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 contains a clear definition of the sovereignty of the people.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady knows that I am only half English. My mother is a Scot. I share entirely the importance that she attaches to the Declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of Right. The hon. Lady will also know that the sovereignty of the people was asserted during the English Revolution and that it was reversed only in 1688. I should regret having to go back to the Bill of Rights. I have never believed that democracy began in Britain when William and Mary arrived. It was a coup

d'état by a corrupt Establishment that wanted to get rid of the Catholics. The hon. Lady will therefore excuse me if, as we live in medieval times, I turn to medieval safeguards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a long intervention.

Mrs. Ewing: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a very interesting intervention, in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman and I both claim that the important aspect of constitutional law must be the sovereignty of the people themselves. It is not parliamentary sovereignty. It is the right of the people themselves to declare where they wish to go in terms of Europe and in terms of the development of any political institution.
We do not even need to go as far back as the Declaration of Arbroath. All we need to do is to consider points made by previous Members of Parliament.
The House of Commons allows itself to be led but does not like to be driven and is apt to turn on those who attempt to drive it.
That was said by the third Viscount Palmerston in a letter to William Gladstone in 1861, indicating that this House of Commons must assert itself if its Members are to represent the views of the people who send them to this Chamber. Public opinion sets bounds on every Government and is the real sovereign in every free Government and every free country.
Those are the issues which are important in this debate, and it is from that viewpoint that my party and my colleagues approach today's decision. We will, of course, vote against the Govenrment, because we have no confidence in them, but not solely because of their mishandling of the issue of Europe, which is a very important issue. I believe in the European ideal. I want to see Europe developed, but I do not believe that the way in which the Government have handled the European debate has enhanced the reputation of themselves or of Europe among our people.
We believe that there should have been a referendum. The Government could have prevented this shambolic mess if they had based their attitude on the right of people to speak on the issue. A referendum could have been held in which people were asked, "Do you want Maastricht, with or without the social chapter?" The people could have decided that. We tabled an amendment to that effect, but, unfortunately, collusion between the two Front Benches meant that the idea of a referendum was not carried.
We saw the spectacle last week of the backwoodsmen and backwoodswomen coming in to deny our people the right to speak on Maastricht and the social chapter. In any democracy, the will of the people is paramount, not the survival of politicians, many of whom reached their expiry date long ago. This is not about saving the skins of politicians but about the will of the people.
I believe that the Government were wrong constantly to postpone a decision on the social chapter. They prolonged the agony for people and for everyone in the country. Maastricht and Europe are not perfect, but we want to enhance and improve them. We shall do so only if people have a right to make their decision about how they want such developments to go ahead.
Many people would welcome the opportunity of a referendum on Europe, which might improve the standard of debate, because they would then address the issues of the Maastricht treaty and the European Community,


whether it be an enlarged Community or a Community as exists at the moment. They would address the issues that are likely to affect not only their lives and our children's lives but those of many generations hence. The development of Europe is very important and I believe that we should have an enhanced debate.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady and I have not always seen eye to eye on referendums, but does she accept that referendums often turn out to be about what they do not purport to be about, and that many other issues are introduced into them? Would not a referendum in Scotland be about a lot of other things?

Mrs. Ewing: Perhaps the difficulty is that there is no proviso within the constitution for regular referendums. In other countries where referendums are held on specific subjects, people address the issues and it was partly our fault that referendums in, for example, the 1970s became mixed up with other issues. Had the Labour Government not been as unpopular as they were in 1979, not only would the people of Scotland have said yes, as they did to the referendum, but they might have overcome the hurdle of the 40 per cent. rule—that most invidious rule which was imposed to try to ensure that the people of Scotland did not have a Scottish Parliament. All of us who are interested in Europe would wish to conduct a referendum on the subject, because we would have an enhanced, enlightened debate throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom which would allow people to cast their votes appropriately.
I understand that the Cabinet has given the Prime Minister full approval to depart to the palace should either vote go against him this afternoon. The prospect of a general election does not frighten the Scottish national party or the Welsh national party. We should be delighted to go to the country. I believe that people wish to see a change, not only of Government, but of the system of government. In Scotland, we have an opportunity not to continue with the farce, but to build a better system of government by holding out the prospect of self-determination for the people of Scotland, allowing them to participate as equals in the European Community.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on a number of issues. We are all conscious that we are here because of the people, and that the Chamber's authority derives from the people. Therefore, it is beholden on Governments and Opposition to be mindful that, when they come together on a great policy, they should not be satisfied with the tests that they set to that great policy, but should ensure that they have canvassed the views of the nation on it. The corruption in the apple that has diminished. Parliament is that, for too many years, the Government and the Opposition have been satisfied to seek merely acquiescence, not consent.
The old, old principles brought the House together and formed its authority. Those principles have been diminished by our casualness. In the great debate over Maastricht, the single most powerful argument raised across the country was that it was boring. By trying to stuff our ears with the idea that something so fundamental to

the concept of democracy—the very essence of democracy—was boring, we perhaps lost the central intent behind our reason for being here.
The Opposition Front-Bench team marched to support the Government on their policy. That policy was not debated in an election, whereby the people of this country could have expressed their view on the transference of their powers—the base of the authority through which we are here—to unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable Ministers in the European Council of Ministers. It was a profound and absolute matter, but we dismissed it as boring. The great commentators took that line. The House took that line, my colleagues busied themselves outside and took that line. However, as a result of that line being taken, today we see a Government before us who are shaking because there may be an election and they have lost the confidence of the House. There is no threat in that. If we believe in the people, we must believe in their judgment. The Prime Minister is right to hold out to the nation the prospect of being able to judge on those issues.
We cannot continue as we have been acting—that applies to all parties. We have refreshment only from the authority of the people, but we deny that because we believe that we can take away that authority and give it into the hands of others who are not accountable to the people. That is why the House is in the greatest danger apparently over the technicalities of a social protocol which touch on a piece of social legislation. For 200 years, the business of the House has been to improve and correct social legislation. Any Government who have the confidence of the people may introduce measures to achieve that end. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) reminded us of some of the ways in which the House has moved to accomplish those ends.
Can a motion dealing with legislation that effects the well-being of our people bring the Government to their knees so that they have to table a confidence motion? Of course not—the motion is not, in essence, about that. The debate and the sustenance of the so-called rebellion among Conservative Members has come about—as Labour Members know—because the people of this country are deeply uncertain and uneasy about something that they do not understand and which politicians - have not been prepared to explain. It lies in our hands to explain it, and we can do so simply.
It is often been said in the House, "My goodness, the issues affecting a general election are of themselves so complex." They touch on the exchange rate mechanism, on monetary policy and on myriad aspects of public life. Yet the electorate can return an answer, and so it can with Maastricht. If we ask the people, we have to explain to them why it is so important to expunge some of the very reasons for the existence of this House—not our vanity, but their powers to reject or to endorse the great issues of our day, and the shape of the social and political fabric of this nation. The Government eschewed it. The Opposition eschewed it. In the end, this House eschewed it.
I was in the House of Lords when the question was put to an undemocratic and unaccountable Chamber, "Should we have a referendum?" If I had turned off the electricity for three minutes, three quarters of the Lords would not be here today. On that check and balance within our constitution rested our freedom and our right.
The Government still have a chance. They should honour those who brought them to office. Those who have risen through the Whips Office, those who have been the


servants of central office and those who have come to control a great and dignified party are the servants of that party. They are not at the moment well fitted for that when they discharge their responsibilities in this manner. That is true across the House. We have become so puffed up with the importance of this Chamber in relation to the people outside. We will change our ways and we will master our approach to the electorate because we are the servants of the electorate.
The motion, as I have said, is not about social policy. Behind it is the survival of a Government. More importantly, no one will ever reconcile me to the vote for Maastricht without the request that the people consent to the transference of their powers. I shall vote for the Government. I shall do so for the reasons that I have adduced, and the House well understands those reasons. However, the House must know that people like me will attest to this: this Government will be a fine Government. They will be a Government one day who are worthy of this party and worthy of this country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks, the House has come to listen, not least when he speaks with such passion. When he says that we cannot go on as a House of Commons as we have been doing, many agree.
As many of my colleagues wish to have their say, I shall restrict myself to one question, albeit a long and rather convoluted question, which I hope will be addressed when the Minister winds up. It is this. Is it not important that we are on the inside track? Ministers have constantly lectured us about the importance of being in on the decision-making and in the inside track or, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in a memorable speech, "in the room." I am baffled about why, having been lectured endlessly over many hours about the importance of being inside Europe, in the decision-making and in the room, we shall be asked to leave the room when social policy is discussed. I have not heard any answer given by any Minister that addresses the question why that principle should not apply to the social chapter.
I tell the Minister that I am a passionate and unreconstructed pro-European. The Opposition Whips were very sweet about that. The Opposition Whips are very charming people of great civilisation, humanity and delicacy. However, they were not wholly enchanted when, quite frequently, I—rightly or wrongly—voted in the Government Lobby during the passage of Maastricht. Along with the Labour party conference and various other people, I want the Maastricht Bill. So I ask the House not to question my impeccable European credentials. But one inevitably asks why on earth we cannot have the same approach to the social chapter.
Some of us believe that the social chapter is an integral part of that to which we have signed up. People have been asked, "Are you prepared to put Maastricht at risk?" Yes, I am prepared—and other impeccable Europeans like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) are prepared—to put Maastricht at risk if we cannot get what we regard as an integral part of the treaty. The social chapter is extremely important to us. It really is.
The Foreign Office has documents from a man called Robin Das, who is based in Moehlin and has written

giving numerous cuttings of advertisements in the Swiss and French press, which say, "Come to Britain and you will find cheaper labour." That is a very humiliating advertisement for our country. I do not like being humiliated in that way. The Foreign Office has copies of those advertisements, but there has been no proper reply about what we should say when faced with such humiliation. What is the Government's thinking on this matter? Is it that we shall repeat time and again the advantage that Cambuslang secured? I am very much in favour of employment in Cambuslang, as my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) know, but the circumstances of the factory in question moving from Dijon to Cambuslang cannot be repeated very happily if we are to be on the inside track of decision making in the Community.
What is the Government's policy? What will happen when we are asked to leave the room on the social chapter? And what do they think that that will do for our influence inside the Community? The truth is that if, over the months and years, we do not agree to the social chapter, many of the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other honourable critics of the Community will be proved to be very near the bone. Either we are in the Community fully and influential or we are out of it. That is what those on the Government Front Bench have repeatedly said.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will remember that, 20 years ago when the pro-Europeans were campaigning vigorously for us to stay in Europe, one of the arguments that they used most often to encourage people to vote for Europe is that it would improve social conditions. At the time, I was working at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. It was argued that staying in Europe would mean better holidays, better pay and conditions and so on. If the Government get their way, many of the folk who voted to stay in Europe at that time will have been conned.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. Our arguments, at endless meetings, up and down the country, in favour of membership of the Community may turn out to have been fraudulent if we do not secure the social chapter. My hon. Friend asks a legitimate question. People will say, "You persuaded us on the basis of a social chapter and better working conditions and on the basis of employment. If that is to be taken away, how do the arguments with which you persuaded us hold water?" What is an embarrassed pro-European supposed to say to those whom one has persuaded to support one's position on Europe when one cannot produce the goods—the social chapter? I hope that that question will be addressed in the Minister's reply.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that there was considerable speculation that a statement was to be made in the House at I I am on the assisted areas. That has—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with a similar point of order.

Mr. Madden: The point that I wish to make is that the matter has now been dealt with by means of a parliamentary written answer. Many areas, including my own, have lost assisted area status. That will make our efforts to attract jobs and to rebuild our economies very


much more difficult. Have you had any request from the Government for a statement to be made on Monday so that hon. Members can ask the Minister why those grave decisions have been taken, as they will make it much harder for us to rebuild the local communities in cities like mine?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the present time, there has been no such request from the Government.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I shall support the Government in the Lobby this afternoon as I have supported them on all the 74 votes that we have had so far on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and associated legislation. I am proud to be able to do that.
If I understood my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary correctly when I heard him on Radio 4 this morning, the Maastricht treaty will be ratified. The Act of Parliament that enables that to happen has received Royal Assent. I hope that we will today ensure that we obtain the Government's motion on the social chapter and the social protocol which will complete that process.
We face two questions. The first is whether that process will be completed with or without the social chapter. I must say to the House, and I have said this elsewhere and on radio and on television, that I do not share quite the frantic panic about the social chapter in all its ramifications that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel.
If I may indulge in a little wishful thinking, I wish that we had felt able to say that the part of the original social chapter that refers to health and safety legislation was not only welcome in this country, but was largely already enacted in this country. We have a proud and substantial record of putting health and safety legislation on to the statute book and of ensuring that it is adhered to and kept, in the interests of all our constituents. We should be proud of that record and we should have been able to say that we were content in respect of that part of the social chapter.
I want to put on the record today a point that I have made on numerous occasions to Ministers. I would dearly like to see better rights for part-time workers, most of whom are women. I would particularly like to see it made compulsory, at some stage in this country, that women who work in part-time jobs should have pension rights and that their employers should contribute towards those pensions.
I fully accept that that cannot be achieved overnight and that it might have to be phased in. However, the net result of the present system is that millions of part-time workers in this country, including women who work part time for many years, may reach the end of their working lives after 20, 30 or 40 years working part time and not be entitled to a pension. When they retire, they may well find that their entitlement to a state pension, based on their husband's contributions, does not fulfil their expectations. Indeed, if they are divorced, separated or abandoned women, they will receive no pension whatsoever. They are then a charge on the state and the social security system. That is costing this country a great deal of money.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Britain has the best health and safety and occupational pensions records in Europe? That can be extended to women without the social chapter. We also have the best social policies in Europe for creating jobs. Therefore, we do not need the social chapter.

Mrs. Currie: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I will continue to argue that women should have pensions, that they should pay into pensions and that we should abandon the married women's reduced national insurance contributions. If we women want equality, we will jolly well have to pay for it. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends can take that point on board at some stage. We should have made that response to at least part of the proposals on the social chapter.
The point on which we in this country rightly dig in our heels is one of the most fundamental—how to encourage or discourage employment. It is a question not just for this country but for the whole of Europe. Indeed, it is a question for the whole of western society. We so long to give social benefits to the people who return us to Parliament, and we genuinely so long to share with them—most of us—the benefits of having a wealthy, prosperous and secure society that we can sometimes be blinded to the fact that we have to compete with the rest of the world, which does not always take on board the social costs which some hon. Members regard as essential.

Mr. Oppenheim: If my hon. Friend believes in equality between men and women, does she think that women should draw their pensions at 65, as men do?

Mrs. Currie: Yes, women should draw their pensions at 65, as men do. However, I do not think that we should introduce that overnight, because that would be very unfair indeed on people who are expecting to retire shortly.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: No, I will not give way again on this matter. We will have many opportunities to debate the rights of women in this country, and I invite the active support of male hon. Members when we. do so.
The part that we should be concerned about and the part that our right hon. and hon. Friends fought hard about at Maastricht, and the part that our colleagues in the Community should have set on one side—which should be a matter of subsidiarity and a matter for each country to decide for itself what it can afford and what it cannot afford—is the relationship between trade unions, Government and management and to what extent collective bargaining should be written into the law of the land.
We have thought our way through that matter in this country. I am not in the least surprised that the views expressed by UNICE, the European employers' organisations, have been somewhat equivocal and contradictory. Part of the social chapter would write into law that if UNICE and the European Trades Union Congress came to an agreement, the Commission and the Council of Ministers would have to consider that agreement, and it would be writ large on the face of 340 million people throughout the Community.
UNICE represents a lot of people, but it does not represent most employers and most employees in the European Community. It certainly does not represent


most of them or even many of them in my constituency. The European TUC represents barely 20 per cent. of the work force. What about the other 80 per cent? When I hear Opposition Members talking about working people, I wonder which working people they are talking about. They are talking about the National Association of Local Government Officers, the National Union of Public Employees and the Transport and General Workers' Union. They are not talking about the ordinary working people in my constituency who choose not to belong to trade unions, and they are not talking about the ordinary working people in my constituency who do not have jobs, who wish to have jobs and who want to keep trade union collective bargaining out of interfering with any possibility of their obtaining jobs.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend's point is interesting and valid. Once again, the Labour party is sidling up to union barons, preparing to hand over power to them, and concentrating on the small number of powerful trade unions who do not represent anybody. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be careful when we assert the prospect of making agreements which can be legally binding, because exactly the same provision appears in section 3B of the Single European Act? It includes a provision for making legally binding agreements between unions and employers if they so wish without the official institutions being involved.

Mrs. Currie: I think that I understand my hon. Friend's point that if a union and a company make an agreement it should be possible for that agreement to be enforced. Most of us would regard it as axiomatic that, if two groups make an agreement, in normal circumstances it is not for the House to interfere with the enforcement of it. I take that point on board. My hon. Friend knows that I am extremely wary of any suggestion that negotiations between national and international bodies which are deeply unrepresentative of the bulk of the people of this community should be enforced on the rest of the community. It seems a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Derek Enright: rose—

Mr. Currie: No.

Mr. Enright: What part of the social protocol says that?

Mrs. Currie: I speak from my experience of such things, for more than 10 years, in my constituency of South Derbyshire.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. lady is misleading the House.

Mrs. Currie: Allan, will you shut up and listen for a minute?

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen and finding it very difficult to do so.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: No. I will not give way.

Mr. Rogers: But the hon. Lady referred to me.

Mrs. Currie: I will give way in a moment.
I speak from the vantage point of having represented my South Derbyshire constituency for 10 years. I have

always taken the view that if we push up the cost of employing people we should not be surprised if we find it more difficult to employ them. We would then have to explain to our constituents why unemployment is high and rising.
We should accept and recognise the view of many international businesses that they wish to employ people at the highest possible levels of training and investment. We have one of the greatest companies in the world in my constituency, Toyota, and I am very proud that we have it. Many other people in my constituency, however, do not work for Toyota and are never likely to. They are not well qualified and will never have the opportunity to rise to that level. Nevertheless, their employment also matters. What also matters to the companies who wish to take them on is whether they can do so on the basis of the costs that they can afford.
The unemployment rate in my constituency is only 6·6 per cent. and falling. It is not only Toyota that is responsible for that; it is the wise and sensible application of policies of employment throughout the constituency by businesses of every kind, from businesses that employ 1,000 people to businesses that employ two people, to those that employ full-time workers, or self-employed people, and those that employ part-time workers. I want to see those workers as well protected as they possibly can be, but first of all I want to see them employed. That is what the social chapter will destroy.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she tell me why the Government abolished the wage councils, which effectively withdrew protection from 2·5 million part-time, female workers? I did not hear the hon. Lady raise her voice at that time to fight for women in part-time work.

Mrs. Currie: As I said to my constituents at the time, and I will continue to do so, I believe the greatest social benefit is having a job.
It is for individuals to decide. In my constituency, we have a large number of small businesses; many of them are brand new. Between 1987 and 1992, we have had 11,000 new businesses registered for VAT. Most of those businesses have survived. Most are small businesses, run by ordinary men and women. It is not for the Government to tell them what they should pay their workers.

Dr. John Reid: rose—

Miss Joan Lestor: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I am flattered, but the answer is no. Sit down. I am anxious not to detain the House much longer because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
I said at the beginning of my speech that the treaty will be ratified and that there are only two questions to be decided today. One is whether it will be ratified with or without the social chapter, and I have made my views clear about that. The motion that we have to debate relates to section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which says that a motion on the social chapter has to be put down by a Minister of the Government.
The other question is: which Government will put down the motion? If this motion is defeated, there will be a general election. Whatever my Derbyshire colleague, the right hon. scion of an aristocratic and noble family, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may say, there will be a general election.
The only remaining question is which Government will put down the motion to ensure ratification. That matter is entirely in the hands of the House. I shall be proud to go into the Lobby with my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I hope that the motion gets the very big positive majority that it deserves.

Mr. Stuart Bell: This is a parliamentary occasion, and in debates on such occasions we move quickly from the sublime to the ridiculous. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made sublime speeches. We then heard the ridiculous speech by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). She made one significant point when she praised the Government's social record and said that it was in line with the social chapter. We have consistently said that there is nothing in the social chapter that is not already on the statute book.
We have spoken about the protection of workers, their rights in the workplace, information and modest proposals to extend social provision. Those are all part of the social dimension about which we heard a great deal yesterday from the Government. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South aspires to the European Parliament. When she is exposed to the variety of ideas in Europe, she will change her views about workers.
Europe has no future without a social dimension. People cannot be turned into robots. A social dimension must be applied to those who invest their lives in gainful employment. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) understands that, and that is evident from his employee share option schemes. The only people who do not understand that are the Government. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) explained the reason for that when he spoke about squeezing lemons, which were squeezed from the day the Maastricht treaty was signed.
When the Prime Minister opted out, as he thought, of the social chapter, and when he sought to opt out of the development of a European currency, he was trying to squeeze Tory lemons—those who were anti-European and did not believe in the futher developments of Europe. Then the Prime Minister tried to assuage them. At that time, the Government had a majority of 100 and the Prime Minister latched on to the social chapter. He said, "I will opt out of the social chapter and offer that to the Tory lemons and they will come into line." They did not come into line then, they did not do so last night, and they have not done so today.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, last night's vote was the clear view of the House that without the social chapter there should not be a Maastricht. treaty. Today's motion is linked to last night's vote. That is a corrupt misuse of parliamentary procedures, and it is the sort of corruption about which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills spoke.
In parliamentary terms, it would have been appropriate for the Government to accept last night's vote and ask for a straight vote of confidence today and not one linked to the social chapter. That corruption worries the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and it worries the rest of

us, because from the time that the Maastricht treaty was signed we have been living from one game, set and match sound bite to another.
The Government have shown a clear lack of direction in their handling of the treaty. The first question was whether the royal prerogative should have been used, because the treaty could have been signed and ratified under that prerogative. The Government forgot about the royal prerogative until they ran into difficulties. The Government then brought in the Attorney-General, who said that the treaty could be ratified under the royal prerogative and that the Bill did not matter. When we came to section 7, the Foreign Secretary said that it did not matter, and it could be left.
Then the matter got to the courts and the Government gave in again and said that the High Court could go ahead with the judicial review. They did not even stand up for the privileges of the House before a court of law, never mind standing up in the House on what the position should have been and over the honesty of their position. The Prime Minister knows full well, as he knew when he signed the Maastrict treaty, that the social chapter is no more than a simple extension of the social dimension.
We have heard about Edouard Balladur, who is coming on Monday—my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made great play of that. However, there is no way that a French right-wing Government will walk away from the social chapter, because they understand the need for the social dimension, and they understand that that dimension is significant for the future of Europe.
The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) spoke of small businesses. Time and again, we are told that regulations come from Brussels. However, most of them are the result of 13 years of Tory government. Through their laws, they have introduced masses of regulations. Not long ago, I was at a dinner with the President of the Board of Trade, who said that of the 7,000 regulations on the books, half had been cut immediately because they were duplicates. But the Government had introduced them in the first place.
My hon. Friends tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, when she was speaking of how Toyota came to her constituency. She did not mention the fact that that was brought about by Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council. Brussels is blamed for regulations when they actually come from the Government.

Mrs. Currie: It might help the hon. Gentleman to know that, when Toyota was having a good look at a number of sites, on of the questions that was put to me in great puzzlement by one of its advisers was, "How come, of all the sites that we are looking at, only one has a Conservative Member of Parliament?" My answer was, "Because my constituents have their heads screwed on."

Mr. Bell: The hon. Lady will take her flippancy to the European Parliament, and I hope that it enjoys it more than we do. Nissan came to Wearside, which is represented entirely by Labour Members of Parliament, and I presume that the same point could be made of Nissan as she has made of Toyota.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Senior managers of multinationals that have invested in my constituency have told me over and over again that they are perfectly willing to pay reasonable wages and offer


decent terms and conditions of employment in return for highly skilled labour. IBM has a plant in my constituency which has survived much better than IBM plants elsewhere because of the fine skills of its work force. For those inward investors, the social chapter presents no problems because they are willing to offer decent terms and conditions of employment.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right.
What does an employer want? We have heard a great deal about the CBI and about ICI. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, made one point clear yesterday. ICI is an international company. When Sir John Harvey-Jones took the decision some years ago to expand into Europe, he did not feel that the European obligations for a social dimension were too great. He said, "This is the future market and we're getting into it." We saw the prospects of ICI investing here diminishing as a result.
Every employer wants his work force to have the best possible conditions, for the simple reason that if conditions are good and the workplace is homogenous, they will be better workers and will have better productivity rates.
The Government talk about productivity and of how the social chapter will attack Britain's productivity. However, we know from figures from the Department of Trade and Industry that in the OECD league of productivity, which covers the European states, we are 18th out of 24. Our productivity without the social chapter is well behind that of Germany and France. There are criticisms of Europe and the 17 million unemployed, but we must realise that as we do not even have the social chapter in Europe it cannot be creating such massive unemployment.
We all know the real reason for that high unemployment—and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) knows it better than most: it is the policy of the Bundesbank. However, when it suits the Government, they move the blame from the Bundesbank to the social chapter.

Dr. Reid: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I only wish that every employer was committed to better conditions for his employees. My experience is that that is not always the case.
Can my hon. Friend clarify a point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) about part-time female workers who do not have the luxury of being employed by Nissan or Toyota? As I understood the hon. Lady's argument—which was not entirely clear to me—the first half was an absolute commitment to increasing the right of part-time female workers to better pensions, including increased employers' contributions. The second half was an absolute commitment to push down all labour costs. How can those two aims be reconciled?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is not a lawyer, but she will understand the term "mutually exclusive". When she relates her speech to what the Government are saying, she will realise that they are mutually exclusive and she may well find herself looking even more towards a seat in the European Parliament.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks about regulation. Of course, the Government are having to deregulate to reduce the

number of unnecessary regulations that impact on industry's competitiveness. The acid test is whether regulations impact upon both competitiveness and cost. The cost figures produced by Eurostat for 1990—the latest available—show that indirect costs in the United Kingdom, excluding direct pay, are, as a proportion of labour costs, the second lowest in the Community. They are about 12·7 per cent., next to Denmark's 2·9 per cent.—but that country has other impediments on wages. The figures for France and Italy are as high as 31 per cent. and 29 per cent. respectively, which is one reason why their economies are so sclerotic and uncompetitive.

Mr. Bell: Those economies are not as uncompetitive as our economy. The OECD table published by the DTI's competitiveness unit shows that. The figures are an embarrassment to the Government. However, I shall leave the matter there as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bell: No. I want to end my speech as quickly as possible.
It was said of the great Italian statesman Mr. Cavour that he was a reed of iron. The Prime Minister is certainly a reed, but we do not see any iron. Instead, we see a Prime Minister who, for the first time in 14 years of Conservative government, has no steady line. The great difficulty that he has with Europe is that on the one hand he wants to be a free trader and he believes that Europe should be a free trade area, but on the other he believes in the Foreign Office line that we should be part of the European Community. He has never been able to resolve that difficulty in his own mind. He cannot decide whether he wants to be in the free trade business or genuinely wants Europe to develop in a cohesive way. Until he gets rid of that dichotomy in his thinking, he will never be at peace with himself.
I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that Europe, as an issue for the Conservative party, will not go away. Maastricht is not the end; it may only be the beginning. As we saw last night, the Prime Minister has lost his majority.
I quote Shakespeare:
If it were done when 'tis done, then `twere well It were done quickly".
It is time that the Prime Minister took the Maastricht question and his handling of the economy to the British people, one year after the event. Those who believe in our democracy and that Parliament and our people are sovereign will vote for that conclusion today. If they do not, we will have three to four years of a lingering, running down and indecisive Tory Government looking for a change of leadership.
The question was asked why the Prime Minister would seek a dissolution. He was clever to bring his whole Cabinet together after last night's vote, to get their agreement, so that if the Queen were to ask, "Who else could form a Government?" the right hon. Gentleman could reply, "None of us. They all agree with me. They are all behind me."

Dr. Godman: They are all in it together.

Mr. Bell: Yes, they are. There is no little bus from the Chief Whip, as there was in the time of a Labour Government, because the Chief Whip is in the same pot as the Prime Minister.
Courage and conviction must be shown in the House this afternoon by Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whom I am glad to see in his place, who have gone down a particular road according to their principles and consciences so that this country may have a fresh, clean start. That is what the British public want.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Assisted Areas Order 1993 has been laid today, three sitting days before the recess. Can you confirm that the remaining 37 days allowed for objections to be lodged before the order comes before Parliament will be available when the House resumes, and that a prayer for consideration by the House may be tabled at any time during the 40 days allowed? Will that still be permitted, despite the shoddy way in which that order has been laid, towards the end of the Session? My constituency is excluded from the order, so that makes it an important issue for me. Can you confirm that debate of that important order, which could mean the loss of jobs for Bradford, will not be prevented?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that such an opportunity will be available.

Sir Giles Shaw: I find myself following the somewhat convoluted views of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), but today a vote of confidence has clearly been laid. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown courage, confidence and commitment in ensuring that the issue is resolved in the way that the House would want—and in the way for which the House has voted time and again. We should proceed to put the matter right in the fastest possible time.
I must comment on the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has left the Chamber. He always brings deep conviction to his views. I am glad that, although he has considerable reservations about what is afoot, he will be supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Lobby.
We are grateful to have such an exponent of the royal prerogative and of the rules of precedence as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I am glad that he was able to make his point in his own inimitable way. The right hon. Gentleman has a rather twisted view of the role of the royal prerogative, but he is entitled to that view because he no doubt reflects the twisted spire of Chesterfield in everything that he does. He certainly produced some extremely effective thoughts.
One reason for this debate is to deal with the practicalities of resolving the Maastricht question, which failed to reach a resolution last night, and another is that we should always examine European developments in considerable depth and with considerable anxiety. I am not one of those who are hell bent on joining everything that the Community or Brussels happens to offer—far from it. It is healthy to exhibit a degree of scepticism towards the rate at which the influence of Brussels has pervaded so much of this country's activities.
One of the Maastricht treaty's major contributions was the fact that it offered the prospect of reversing that thrust and that concentration of power for the first time. The commitment that powers should be devolved from the centre and then absorbed into the national political system of each member state has for the moment been put on hold. If ratification of the treaty brings the possibility of true subsidiarity, we shall for the first time be shifting back the pendulum of power to where the House rightly believes it should lie. That is one of the cardinal advantages of what my right hon. Friend and his colleagues negotiated at Maastricht.
The time that has elapsed since those negotiations has passed in vigorous exposé and discussion—and, yes, boredom and tedium—of what is in the treaty, how it affects the United Kingdom and which clauses are acceptable and which are not. We cannot say that the House has failed to examine the issue or that we have taken no notice of it. The treaty has absorbed the totality of this place for probably far too long. Our constituents are worried not about the boredom of not knowing what the heck the Maastricht saga is all about but about more important issues that affect them directly. They are worried about unemployment, law and order, schools and housing.
I do not want to get involved in the fine detail of the opt out, unlike the hon. Member for Middlesbrough who holds his brief well. However, it is distortion to believe that the United Kingdom offers cheap labour and that we gather investment only because we have low labour costs. The opposite is true. Nissan has come to Wearside and, by gosh, I am glad that it has. Toyota has come to Derbyshire, which I am sure deserves it. The fact that Japanese investment in this country is greater than in any other European nation state has nothing to do with labour rates and everything to do with the fact that the United Kingdom is a committed partner in the Community.
The Japanese have been able to work on the fact that we have a manufacturing culture that can provide high levels of skill and the greatest competitiveness in terms of cost of any outside plant that the Japanese have located anywhere in the world. I have had the privilege of visiting Honda in Japan. Nissan, Toyota and Honda regard the United Kingdom as a centre of excellence in terms of quality of production and competitive pricing. If we lose that advantage, we shall lose the jobs that have been brought to this country by investors such as the Japanese. In this fragile state of economic development, we must be careful not to lose those competitive international initiatives.
There is some doubt—let us put it no more strongly than that—about whether the implementation of the social chapter would tilt the balance against us in terms of cost. There is no future for British manufacturing industry unless profits generate investment to enable competitive products to be produced and unless costs are contained in an economy that does not inflate by virtue of having additional costs placed on it from extraneous sources.
We already have most of the social and employment benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said. We do not, however, necessarily have the same latitude as other countries to absorb further costs in relation to the prices of goods and services that we must export.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman talks about Britain being a committed partner. He has serious negotiating


experience in the European Community. How can we be seen as a committed partner if we are asked to leave the proverbial room when vital issues are being discussed? What the heck would our European partners think of us for having opted out from crucial discussions? The hon. Gentleman knows what happens with people who, unlike us, have been brought up in adversarial and hemispherical politics—they will take it ill if we opt out of an important aspect. The hon. Gentleman must know that from his experience.

Sir Giles Shaw: I do not think that they would see it like that. I think that they would say that the United Kingdom has, rather rarely, stood up for its own particular interests —just like the French, the Dutch, the Danes and the Italians.
I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. I well remember negotiating in the Industry Council, on which I was the United Kingdom Government's representative for a time, on shipbuilding, a matter of huge importance to a number of Opposition Members and to me. I was astonished at the negotiating tactics of other countries. The Italians sent two Ministers, because one Minister from the coalition Government would not trust another Minister in the same coalition Government, so the. Minister with responsibility for marine matters and the Minister for industry both arrived at the negotiating table. They had lots of devious thoughts when it came to the negotiation and implementation of European policy. There is no straight road through European negotiations. It is full of twists and curves. The G-factor is always there.
The other important fact about the current European situation is that we are suffering as a result of the far too easy implementation of European Community directives that have been developed in Brussels. We have an automatic system—almost unique in the Community—of implementing all the European Community directives and bringing them within our basic United Kingdom law almost overnight. Thus we get ourselves hooked on implementing directives in a way that other nation states within the Community certainly do not.
Let us consider the absurdity of the drinking water directive and the urban waste water treatment directive. If we go to Italy, Greece, Portugal or Spain, we see that not one of them has implemented those directives as fully as we have. Unless we can grapple with that problem and eliminate this insidious process, which weakens our capacity to run our own economy and industrial system in the way that we want, we shall be at a severe disadvantage.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the way to eliminate the problem is to make sure that we get right into the European Community and become a committed partner. Then we shall be able to influence the way that the Community develops. Originally, it was a free trade area. First, there was the Coal and Steel Community. Then we passed the Single European Act. Since then the single market has been established. We are removing barriers to trade.
We have an enormous capacity for trade within the Community. All that we have gained, but what we have not yet gained is a sufficient grip on Brussels. We cannot yet prevent it from generating legal material that, willy-nilly, we have to absorb, as a consequence of which we find that we are in real technical difficulties.
We have two issues to settle today. First, the Government deserve for a very long time to come the

confidence of the House in what they seek to do. Secondly, the Maastricht treaty must be ratified, once and for all. Who knows? When we are right on the inside of the European track we may find that, once again, we have saved ourselves by our exertions and Europe, perhaps, by our example.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) referred to the time when he negotiated on behalf of this country's shipbuilding industry with other members of the European Community. The most important point that needs to be made is that, however obscure and difficult the negotiations may have been, the other members of the European Community still have shipbuilding industries. I represent a Merseyside constituency. Therefore, I am bound to say that our shipbuilding industry has been entirely devastated since that time. The hon. Gentleman's time as a negotiator could not, therefore, have been terribly successful.
I wish to make two points and I shall try to be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak. The first results from a conversation that I had last Saturday with a constituent who is a former Conservative voter and a former member of the Conservative party. He stopped me in the shopping precinct in Prescot and asked, "What is going on with the Government?" I said, "We will have to wait and see, but they are in some difficulty, as you well know." He said, "What mystifies me, George, is that I was brought up to believe in certain things, which made me a Conservative. I was brought up to believe that we have the best police force in the world and that when somebody had committed an offence the police arrested them and put them in prison until such time as they were charged or whatever. Unfortunately, it seems that once we arrest criminals we cannot hold them. I believed that we have the finest system of justice in this country and that when somebody was convicted they were guilty of the offence, but unfortunately it seems that as many innocent people are locked up in prison as guilty people. I was also brought up to believe in the Bank of England and the importance of our currency. We are all aware of what has happened under the exchange rate mechanism. Finally, I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to pay for the social chapter for other EC countries but are not prepared to extend its benefits, modest though they are, to our citizens."
I am pleased to say that that former Conservative party member intends to vote Labour at the next election. Unfortunately, if the boundary commissioner has his way, it will not be in my constituency. The point that he was making is serious and there is an old-fashioned expression to describe it—patriotism. What mystifies people of his generation, who lived through the second world war and the period between the wars, is the Government's abandonment of the old-fashioned concept of patriotism—not flag waving and jingoism, but the belief that a United Kingdom Government would try to represent the interests of their own people over and above those of others. They find the Government's abandonment of that principle offensive.
Several hon. Members, most movingly the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), referred to the mystification of the Maastricht treaty—the


obscurity of what we are arguing about and a parliamentary process that at times has left hon. Members bewildered, let alone people outside.
That leads to a cynicism—and perhaps in some ways a justified cynicism—among people outside the House, and the Government are feeling the backlash of that cynicism. The Christchurch by-election will be held in an about a week's time. It is common knowledge that there is no prospect of the Government's winning one of the safest Conservative seats. Confronted with such a backlash, it is time that the Government stood back and took stock of where they have gone wrong.
During the Maastricht process, I have sometimes been in the minority in my party. I did not abstain on Second Reading and, on amendments, I have consistently voted against the treaty. But cynicism has been displayed, both last night and in the cheap trick that the Prime Minister has tried to play on the British public and in the House today. People do not say that those who are against the Maastricht treaty are heroes and those who support it are fools or charlatans. People say that the House has not managed to explain to those outside precisely where it is moving, and why.
I believe that the most valid argument—the time for which has now passed—was that there should have been a referendum. Other hon. Members have made the argument clearly during the debate. If we do not trust people to make decisions on such issues, they are entitled to feel that the Government and, to some extent, the House are being cynical in the way in which they are using—or abusing—the powers vested in them.
I am glad to see that my brief comments have attracted the attention of the Prime Minister, who has returned to the Chamber, particularly as I am just about to mention his role in the process. There is no point in pretending other than that the chances are that the Government will survive the confidence motion. But that will not mark the end of the Prime Minister's or the Government's. problems. The abandonment of partiotism, and the cynicism engendered in the British public, will be there to haunt the Government. Whether the Government last six months, one year, two years or even three years, that backlash will wreak terrible revenge on them when they finally have the courage to face the electorate.

Mr. William Cash: We have had a long and protracted debate. I must admit that it has gone on for many months—in my case it has gone on for about six years. In the past, I have tried to explain why I thought that we were being taken into a federal Europe. I first detected that possibility back in 1986, and decided that I would try to set out my stall on the subject. I was told that in those days the former Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe, used to say that I was telling terror stories to frighten little children. We have come a long way since then.
I am, and will always be, deeply opposed to the principles that underlie the Maastricht treaty. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—I am more than glad to see him sitting on the Front Bench today—said that we must not be sidelined. I fear that the opt outs, both in respect of economic and monetary union, and the social

chapter, place us in an incredibly difficult position. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary requested me to write a paper for the Conservative manifesto committee some time ago. I said then that I thought that we should repudiate economic and monetary union because otherwise we would be stuck on the outside of the system which was developing as Europe became more closely integrated.
The problem is that the opt outs will not solve the problem for which they were designed. We will be drawn in by gravitational pull. If and when it is ratified, the Maastricht treaty will not actually be the Maastricht treaty, but a part of the treaty on European union taken collectively. Therefore, we shall be bound within the legal structure.
When, under section 2 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, we make a separate decision, so it is said, about whether we go down the route of a single currency later, we shall face a stark choice. Shall we or shall we not remain in the European Community? The Maastricht treaty and the other treaties will all be taken collectively into one and that will present a problem for us.
If we try to renegotiate the arrangements that have been made over the past two years, the problem that we have set ourselves is this. By giving in on the Maastricht proposals —giving in to threats, I believe, and I do not think that appeasement is the right way to go in these matters—I fear that we shall not be able to unravel the arrangements, as the Government would wish to a certain extent, precisely because the unanimity of all the member states is needed to achieve the changes that are required and, as I understand it, are promised between now and 1996.
At least six of the member states are tied in by the fact that they are in the Community for the money that they get out of it. Nobody can doubt that the federalism that I predicted many years ago has now become a form of religious hysteria for some member states, to the point at which I cannot believe that they will all agree to unravel the arrangements on our terms. I see us, therefore, being locked into the legal structure with deleterious results for the United Kingdom.
That is not to say that I am, in any sense other than the way I have described, against the European Community as it has developed so far, although I believe that we should reform the Single European Act to give a better crack of the whip to the British. We do especially badly out of many arrangements. That unfairness led me to vote against the coal pit closure programme. I knew that the Germans got £9 billion of European Community state aids, whereas we get £160 million authorised state aids.

Sir Jim Spicer: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has at no point taken into account what will happen when we have the accession of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria. One of the great successes of Maastricht was to move forward to that new membership. Each and every one of those new members will be a supporter of this country. They will not only be contributors; their thinking about how the Community should develop is exactly along our lines.

Mr. Cash: I understand my hon. Friend's point. What is more, I am delighted to know that other member states are coming into the arrangements with us. The question is, what arrangements? My concern is that the proposals


under the Maastricht treaty, which apply to the whole of Europe, will damage Europe as a whole and the United Kingdom in particular.
I give an example by reference to the protocol on social policy and the social chapter. It is my firm belief that we should have resisted it, as we resisted economic and monetary union. We should not hand over the rights of our voters to the decisions of unelected bankers. In the same way, by allowing the other 11 member states to go ahead, the provisions of the social chapter, such as the 48-hour working time directive, will come in through the back door. Precisely because we agreed to articles 2 and 3 of the treaty changing the directives, when it comes to interpretation, the courts will say where there are doubts, "You agreed to social protection, you agreed to social cohesion and you agreed to economic cohesion." There will, therefore, be a substantial argument against us, even when we get to court, on the 48-hour working time directive. The decision will be taken on the basis of the Maastricht treaty arrangements which work so much against us because we conceded changes in the objectives set out in the early articles of the treaty.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) about the need to bring other member states in, but we must look at what is happening not only in relation to the vast number of member states that will eventually be involved and the new institutional arrangements with which it will be so difficult to cope, but in relation to the fact that the Community needs to be able to compete with the Association of South-East Asian Nations, with the countries of the Pacific basin and with Mexico. Why is Jaguar, for example, considering going to Mexico? The answer is that it knows that it will have a competitive advantage. I very much hope that the company does not move from Coventry. It cannot have very much faith in our arguments about the social chapter if it proposes to go to Mexico. We also know about the recent problems concerning British Airways and social dumping.
I fear that, under the arrangements, it will be impossible for Europe as a whole to compete with other countries in the world. The Germans in particular are worried that we shall be saddled with costs that will make us uncompetitive. That is the problem which I foresee. Why are the Germans taking up 85 per cent. of all the investment in eastern Europe? They are doing so because those countries are outside the European Community. I believe that that is one of the reasons why there is reluctance to accept those eastern European countries into the Community for the time being.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): My hon. Friend will know that I have more sympathy with his views than people may sometimes suspect. Surely the powerful and eloquent case that he is making is not a case against the Maastricht treaty but a case against being in Europe in the first place. My hon. Friend may recall that, in a debate last year, I said to him that, logically, his case was a case for the thoroughly unfeasible option of coming out of Europe. My hon. Friend said on that occasion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions are supposed to be short. The hon. Gentleman has made one comment, and that is sufficient.

Mr. Cash: I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend did not reach the point that he intended to make, Mr. Deputy

Speaker. As I cannot remember the speech that I made on the occasion in question, I shall not be able to reply to his intervention. Would it be in order if I allowed my hon. Friend to get to his point so that I can do him the courtesy of a reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the fault of the occupant of the Chair if the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention to the first question.

Mr. Cash: There is a huge problem as to whether or not we can exert an influence within the European Community, as evidenced by the fact that, when the former Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Copenhagen to try to convince the rest of the Community that there were fault lines in the exchange rate mechanism—which was supposed to reflect the fact that we were at the heart of Europe and could influence what went on—the other member states turned round and told us to go away. They said, "We do not believe a word that you are saying. We will go ahead with our own agenda." Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary came to the House and told us that we would not be recognising Croatia. But Herr Genscher thought and believed that here was an opportunity for the greatest foreign affairs victory for the German nation since 1945, so the screws were put on. Although we were supposedly at the heart of Europe, we found ourselves agreeing to recognise Croatia. Many would say that that gave rise to the problems now facing Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I am not saying that we should come out of the Community. We want to stay in the Community. We must stay in the Community, because it has benefits for us. I hope that, sooner or later, we shall be able to sort out the question of our deficit with it of £8 billion a year. We must not, however, find that, by entering into new arrangements, we end up depleting our influence rather than increasing it. The real difficulty with which we are faced is that we have entered a system with institutional arrangements that give other countries too much power and too many controls over us. Yes, we must stay in the European Community and we must say in the single market. That is why I am so concerned about the treaty.
The difficulty arose from the fact that we did not veto the matter in the first place. However, from what has been said today, I now know that if we are to have a general election on this point, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, in coalition or together if they were to win such a general election, would be 10 times worse than my objections and, believe me, I took this decision on my own terms.
If there had been even the slightest suggestion at any point in these proceedings that the Labour party was prepared to ditch this rotten treaty, I would have had a lot more respect for the Labour party. But it never was prepared to do that and it never will be. I will not in any way resile from my objections to the treaty. However, I am damned if I will have the Opposition running the affairs of this country within the Maastricht arrangements.

Mr. George Galloway: I intend to be brief and to confine my remarks to a relatively narrow section of the debate. However, notwithstanding the rather uncharacteristic ire of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), it would be churlish of me to follow him


without paying tribute to the indefatigable pursuit that he and his fellows have made over these long months of what they thought was right for this House and this country.
As other hon. Members have said, the hon. Member for Stafford has written himself into the history books of this country as a skilful and dedicated parliamentarian. As this is the last opportunity during this Maastricht business for me to do so, I wanted to pay that tribute to the hon. Gentleman's efforts and dedication.
I want to confine my remarks to the issue of what deal was done prior to last night's vote and in relation to the vote that will take place at 4 pm today. In his opening remarks in relation to the Ulster Unionist party, the Prime Minister said that nothing was asked for and nothing was given. The Prime Minister must know that that possibility has no resonance. It is not believed anywhere important in this or other lands. It is not believed in the north of Ireland where the minority population at least must wait with some trepidation to see what was asked for or what was given.

Dame Jill Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galloway: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way; I have only just begun.
That possibility is not believed in Dublin, a fraternal capital and a Government close to us with whom we have warm relations and share membership of the European Community. It is not believed in other capitals of the European Community, and it is not believed in Washington, that is for sure.
When I saw the nine grim-faced men emerge from their office last evening, and heard through the process of osmosis that occurs in this House that they had decided after all to try to save the Government's bacon, I and other hon. Members speculated about what the terms of the deal could possibly be.

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman may not have been in his place when, from the Government Front Bench, it was said perfectly clearly that no deal was made, and the immediate reaction of the Ulster Unionists was to nod vigorously.

Mr. Galloway: As a less honourable lady once said in a less honourable place than this, "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
The point that I was making was that nobody believed that statement, notwithstanding the gusto with which it was made. Without being told what deal was done, one can only speculate what deal could possibly have been done. One must surely disregard the wilder speculations.
One of my colleagues jokingly said that perhaps the B Specials are back. Perhaps a British expeditionary force has been launched into Donegal to recover it for the Northern Ireland statelet. Perhaps we are going back to one man, two votes in certain Northern Ireland elections. Perhaps we are going back to institutionalised discrimination in housing and jobs—although discrimination still exists in respect of jobs. Not so long ago it was institutionalised in the rules, regulations and constitution Of the Northern Ireland statelet. Is that the discussion that took place with the nine grim-faced men who, as they

entered the Chamber, looked as though they had walked off the set of the "Jurassic Park" of British politics, the Northern Ireland political system?

Mr. David Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the tone of his remarks about our colleagues from Northern Ireland only confirms the deep suspicion that they now have of the Labour party?

Mr. Galloway: I now refer to that point. I turned to the BBC this morning for elucidation of what deal might have been done. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is the intellectual of that bunch of grim-faced men, say, "No deal was done as such"—he repeated that thrice—"but what we made"-1 wrote it down—"was a small investment for the future." I do not know who the hon. Gentleman's stockbroker is, but that investment struck me as being on a par with a little flutter on Polly Peck just a week or two before Mr. Nadir flew the coop.
Just what dividend did the hon. Gentleman expect? What must we expect as a dividend from that small investment that the hon. Gentleman's party made? That is always supposing, of course, that the Government keep their side of the bargain, as members of the Scottish National party found when they did a deal—"Dear Ian; Dear Margaret; yours sincerely, Ian; yours ever, Margaret." Such deals are not always kept. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said, that which is bought on Thursday can be sold on Monday.
Exactly what dividend or gain is expected by the nine gentlemen who tried to save the Government's bacon last evening? Not only the House but people in the north of Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, in Europe, in the United States of America and across the civilised world, where people have an interest in what happens in the Six Counties, deserve to know. The Government shamelessly exploited those hon. Members' fears and those of the community that they represent about developments in the Labour party's and others' thinking.

Mr. Hurd: rose—

Mr. Galloway: The Foreign Secretary seems to be trying to elucidate further. I am glad to give way to him.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member the power and mischief of rumour, but he has spent the past 10 minutes embroidering on speculation. He has produced no evidence to refute the statement made by the Prime Minister and corroborated by the Unionists. I am sure that he is aware of the danger and damage that could be done, particularly in Ireland, by this kind of speculation. Would he please produce some evidence to support his remarks before he proceeds with his analysis?

Mr. Galloway: As the deal was only done in the later hours of last night, I am—

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): No deal was done.

Mr. Galloway: I do not believe that; that is the burden of my remarks. Nobody else believes it either. As the deal was done only late last night, and as the Prime Minister made his remarks this morning, time will tell just what deal has been done.
In the final stages of last night's debate, the Secretary of State for Employment said, with his usual flourish, that his party was the Conservative and Unionist party. In the past few weeks, the Government have been determined—according to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, it has only been evident in the past few weeks—to reaffirm and strengthen their commitment to the Unionist cause. Is anyone seriously being asked to believe that that policy and the words of last night were not uttered to keep the Unionist Members on side?
It is exactly that capitulation to the powers of veto of those nine gentlemen and the people they represent that has landed us with the dreadful decades and centuries-long problem of Ireland.
I am not in any sense making light of the fears of the Unionist population, but I heard Ministers shamelessly describe a discussion document written by the Opposition spokesman on Ireland as being akin to a plan devised by the devil. Conservative Members are aware, however, that the idea of joint sovereignty has occupied intellectual thinking time in the backrooms of Governments of both parties for many years. They are aware that the perfectly respectable, fraternal Government of the Republic of Ireland also believe that that idea might be worth pursuing. Conservative Members know that it is an idea whose time may well have to come. For the Government to exploit that idea shamelessly in order to dragoon the nine grim-faced gentlemen into their Lobby does them just as much discredit as the arm twisting and other attempts of duress, by one means or another, to dragoon the parliamentary majority for the Maastricht Bill.
The Government know that we are close to a time when we will all have to think about ways in which to get out of the desperate, dreadful and miserable decades-long running sore that is the history of Britain and Ireland. We should be encouraging responsible, respectable democratic politicians to talk to other such politicians to try to find a way out of that problem, because the alternative means that our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters will be sitting in the House talking about the blood and tears that continue to flow in Ireland. That is the story of Ireland.
I believe that when the history of this period comes to be written, not only will the honourable and noble campaign led by the hon. Member for Stafford be of great interest to the historians, but the squalid shabby way in which the Government tried to escape from the consequences of their actions will be just as luminous.

Dame Jill Knight: I wish to distance myself as far as possible from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). Given the clear statement that has been made by my right hon. Friends and which has been corroborated by a number of Unionist Members, it is utterly disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his argument.
New Members have to select the special interest subjects that they will follow. Obviously, it is impossible to become involved in all the subjects that the business of the House encompasses, so we select subjects based on our constituencies. Members with country constituencies will have an interest in agricultural matters, while those with coastal constituencies will be interested in retirement homes, shipping, fishing and so on.
In Birmingham, a part of which I have been proud to represent for 27 years, our main interest is industry. It is our life blood, and it is crucial to our constituents. It is also crucial to the rest of the country, because when Birmingham does well, Britain does well, and when Birmingham suffers, the country suffers. It follows that the opinions, advice and experience of industrial bodies such as the CBI and chambers of industry and commerce are to me a mixture of the tablets of stone, "Erskine May" and the seven pillars of wisdom.
The people in those organisations can create for my constituents jobs, security, opportunities and prosperity, and I listen with great care to everything that they say. Their advice on the social policy protocol is clear and unequivocal. They do not want it at any price because they know that it will push up costs, destroy jobs and be a bureaucratic nightmare. It will deny employers and employees their right to basic, free negotiations with each other. They do not want—and I believe that our people do not want—direction from Brussels.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I will not give way to that hon. Gentleman. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) if he wishes to intervene.
I have detected all along that Joe Public is perfectly happy to be part of the European club. He approves of being a member of a Community which eases trade between its member states, which eases travel and banking facilities, and which is a power and a strength for peace and a voice in the world. Joe Public becomes upset when he thinks that we may reach a point at which we are bullied by Brussels, and I understand that feeling.
Some months ago there was a great prawn crisp row because people believed that prawn crisps were to be snatched from their mouths by the vicious interference of Brussels. People wrote to me in great distress because they had been told that Brussels would not allow us to continue to use double-decker buses. That fear was just as fallacious as the one about prawn crisps, but we have gone from crisps to buses to other topics. Such issues, rather than not being a member of the Community, are what worry people.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke fluently about not agreeing with being told to leave the room. We want to be able to say that Britain does not agree with some parts of Brussels diktats. We do not approve of being told by Brussels that we must do what she says when those instructions exceed the power and wisdom of the House. We want to keep for ourselves the power to pass our own laws. There is nothing wrong with that.
Labour Members fail to understand that, although we are a member of the club and proud to be so, and although we wish to remain so, there will always be some things that come out of Brussels to which we object. I objected strongly to some of the rules and diktats on butchers shops and some Labour Members joined me in my objections. Many small butchers shops closed as a result of directions from Brussels.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The English sausage.

Dame Jill Knight: As always, my hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. Some hon. Members fail to understand that, while we want to be part of Europe, that does not mean that we have to follow it in everything that it says.

Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in relation to the social charter. Surely the way in which we employ and pay people and the way that their pensions and other conditions are calculated are bound up with our traditions and cultures. Therefore, it is right that they should be a matter not for Europe and for Brussels but for contractual negotiation between employers and employees within the countries of Europe.

Dame Jill Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is exactly the point that I am making. The hon. Member for Linlithgow felt that we should not ask to leave the room. The whole point is that there are sectors —my hon. Friend has just listed some—in which we want to be able to keep our own counsel and do what we think is right for our own people.
Let us be clear that employers are fully in favour of genuine workplace health and safety measures, of initiatives to improve the way in which the single market works—for example, recognition of equivalent vocational qualifications—and of fair and level working conditions. All of those are already catered for in the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. There is no need for the social chapter.
Good employee involvement cannot be brought about by direction from Brussels. Good employer involvement is for the good employer to organise with his good employees and that is something which every sensible employer seeks. One cannot run a successful business if the people one employs are unhappy and feel that they have been treated wrongly and unfairly.

Dr. Godman: Am I acceptable to the hon. Lady?

Dame Jill Knight: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is acceptable.

Hon. Members: Favouritism.

Dr. Godman: I assure the House that the hon. Lady and are not even hon. Friends, although she gave way to me with characteristic good grace.
I say, thank God for Brussels, where the health and safety of fishermen and offshore oil and gas industry employees is concerned, not forgetting that dreadful occurence that overtook Piper Alpha when constituents of mine were consumed in those flames. Brussels, with its health and safety legislation by way of directives is improving matters for those offshore workers.

Mr. Hurd: Rubbish.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman may say rubbish, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dame Jill Knight: But that is all happening without the social chapter. Every sensible employer must seek good relations, good health and safety and all the other important factors that we all want. All of the really great employers—Cadburys. Marks and Spencer, Westland—understand that very well and look after employees in the

way that they think best. They will not look after them any better because someone in an office in Brussels tells them to do so. We have been saved from all that bureaucracy by the way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has dealt with the social protocol.
The Labour party makes me so angry. Many things about it worry me, but its hypocrisy worries me most of all. It mouths pious platitudes about law and order, but then votes against every measure that would improve them. It tries to make enormous political capital out of unemployment, but intends to vote for something that will increase unemployment.
I salute the integrity of hon. Friends who have fought their fight, but they have lost the battle. However keenly they feel, they are democrats at heart and they know that the House has voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that, over many months, the House has repeatedly endorsed the Government's view on it. There is no point in calling for a referendum, because we had a referendum on whether Britain should join Europe. We cannot have referendums at every point as that policy develops. That would be utterly ridiculous.
I shall have enormous pleasure not only in voting with the Government in the Lobby tonight, but in cheering when they win.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Many factors have come together to create a very unpleasant few hours for the Conservative party, which we are all delighted to watch. Nothing that has happened today will solve the Government's long-term problem. The very fact that the Prime Minister has had to threaten an election to bring his own party into line is a sign of weakness, not of strength. The bitterness that will linger in his party will fester and grow.
I do not know where the Prime Minister developed that style of leadership. It certainly was not there at the beginning of his political career on Lambeth council, which I watched. That council was decisively led by Bernard Perkins, who took up clear positions and persuaded his party to follow him. There was nothing in the Prime Minister's early tutorship that would have led him to believe that he should say one thing to one wing of his party and something else to the other wing, and then hope to muddle through. That was not what he learnt in his first elective office. If Bernard Perkins were here today, he would feel some shame at the spineless way in which the Conservative party is being led.
Almost the entire debate on Maastricht, which has stretched on for almost two years, has been conducted completely dishonestly. The Conservative party is telling the British people that it involves a small set of changes of no great importance. It says that we will not necessarily have to join a single currency, yet the treaty is about currency union. Even the idea of having an opt-out clause on the central points of the treaty raised the question why, if we want to reserve the right to opt out of currency union and the central bank, do we bother to go through all this pain? I do not have the slightest doubt that this is a strategy of slowly, slowly catchee monkey. The Prime Minister has tried to lead his party into accepting the treaty by saying that it is not really much of a treaty. That has not worked. People throughout the country are genuinely confused. We are told that the treaty is not


about a united states of Europe; it is just a small number of economic changes dragged down by the incubus of the social chapter.
The truth is that the treaty is a major step towards the creation of a united states of Europe. Before it is even ratified by all the 12 members, there are the opening rounds of the debate about the next stage. It is building for the intergovernmental conference in 1996, at which all our European partners will debate a common defence strategy, a common defence force, and a common foreign policy. Whatever Conservative Members may tell their constituents, they know that we are moving stage by stage towards a united states of Europe and are deceiving the people of Britain by pretending otherwise.
I am prepared to debate the creation of a democratic, socially progressive Europe, because that would be a step forward—but we are not being told about that. The Prime Minister has problems because many of the Conservative rebels who have made life so difficult for the Government over the past 18 months are fighting to prevent that happening because they are nationalists. They love the concept of this nation and its rules and Parliament, and they do not want them to go.
Many Conservative Members do not display the same integrity. They tell their constituency associations that the treaty is of far less significance and importance. That is the reason for the mess and why the Prime Minister must come to the House and threaten a dissolution, to drag reluctant Conservative Members through a Division, knowing that they are lying to themselves as they walk through the Lobby doors.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: If the treaty is so desperately bad, why would the hon. Gentleman vote for a more full-blooded version of it?

Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman may be unaware of my position. I oppose the treaty because it gives power to bankers. I oppose giving English bankers any power. I am broadly opposed to bankers. I see from their track record in the conduct of financial affairs that the only thing they willingly do is to give money to crooks such as Robert Maxwell and Asil Nadir. People like that can always get money. Bankers are a naturally conservative group, and I shall never be happy with a treaty that gives great power to bankers.
I am not, however, opposed to a united Europe. I am prepared to participate in any debate on the format of a united Europe and on the democratic checks and balances that should be in place.
Irrespective of that issue, and given the state of the country, I would vote for anything to get rid of the shower on the Benches opposite. Even if I agreed with them, I would vote against them today in the slight hope that that might lead to the Government's downfall in a general election. I would do anything to precipitate the next general election. I would be prepared to sit naked in the middle of Parliament square if it would advance the cause of a general election.

Mr. Frank Cook: It would not.

Mr. Livingstone: I am not surprised.
The Government should be honest about what is behind this debate—and there is bitterness because they have not been that. An honest, open debate on whether we

should move towards a united states of Europe would be a cleansing experience for all right hon. and hon. Members.
Nothing was more typical of the conduct of this debate than when the Foreign Secretary slithered to his feet during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). My right hon. Friend was pointing out that the social chapter has very limited powers. If any of my other right hon. or hon. Friends imagine that it would bring some form of revolutionary socialism to Europe, they would be sorely disappointed. It embodies a small series of reforms with which even the Liberal Democrats can feel happy. It has very little real backing or power. Nevertheless, it marks a small step forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that the same speeches made against the social chapter could have been heard when Parliament debated the law to prevent young children from being used as chimney sweeps. The Foreign Secretary intervened to say, "But there could be a European directive about paper boys." The right hon. Gentleman did not mention paper girls because he is a bit backward on political correctness.
That is the kind of nonsense we have been hearing. That is not what Europe is about. There may be the odd problem—such as the flavouring of crisps mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), but they are peripheral to the real issue. Incidentally, we already have legislation to protect paper boys and paper girls. How typical of the Foreign Secretary to be unaware that it is on the statute book and say, "You could even get legislation from Brussels about the working conditions of paper boys."
It is difficult today for boys and girls to get such jobs, because, as there is no other work, grown men and women are doing them. The same occurred during the great recession in the United States, when men and women were driven to taking jobs that were normally done by children. The Government have managed to replicate that. That is the context in which we are holding this debate.
We are told that there was no deal involving the Ulster Unionists. Does anyone in Britain seriously believe that no understanding was reached? Of course, no one signed a bit of paper because one side did not trust the other. It may yet be revealed that someone took a tape recorder to the interview and, if so, it might be interesting and should be published.
It is an insult to the intelligence of the British people, let alone to that of the House, to deny that a deal was struck. A deal was struck, but at what cost to the chances of bringing to an end the appalling decades of violence and discrimination? That is perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the proceedings. When I hear the Prime Minister say that there has been no deal, I do not believe him; nor will anyone else in Britain. When the Ulster Unionists go home, they will not be saying that there was no deal. I imagine that the leader of the Ulster Unionists who did the deal may be counting his fingers. A deal was certainly done. It represents a step backwards for any hope of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the changes that have undoubtedly occurred in the past 10 years has been the improvement in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic? Would it not be a cause of great concern if that good


relationship were in any way undermined by a feeling in Dublin that there has been an understanding, if not a deal? Should not every effort be made to continue a good working relationship between London and Dublin, which includes the understanding that Dublin has an interest in what happens in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Livingstone: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Discussions in the corridors of the Dail today will centre on the cost of the deal and what it will mean. The deal will cause a setback and will mean distrust. The Irish Government will know that, when the crunch came, the first thing to be sacrificed was progress in the developing relationship between the British and Irish Governments.

Mr. Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman remember a deal done years ago between the Labour party and the Liberals? It was called the Lib-Lab pact. An understanding was reached, and the Liberals sustained the Labour party in office for many years. Does he not understand that the Ulster Unionists were upset when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) suggested rule from Dublin? It is no wonder they joined us.

Mr. Livingstone: There is a small difference between the two cases. As I remember it, there was an open and public debate about the Lib-Lab pact. I was opposed to it and would have preferred it if my party, having lost the majority, had called an election. In any event, the pact was conducted in public and was honest and open. That is the difference between the Lib-Lab pact and the squalid little deal which, we are told, was not made.

Mr. John Townend: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: I must press on because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I am sure that the Government will survive today's motion, but they assume that the issue will then go away. It will not. Labour went through a trauma in its relationship to Europe just over 20 years ago. In a remarkable mirror image of the events of the past two days, a Tory Government in trouble were sustained in the Division Lobbies by 69 Labour Members who kept the Government in power because of their overall commitment to Europe. It has left a legacy of more than a decade of internecine warfare, bitterness and strife within the Labour party. It is only 21 years later that one of those 69 hon. Members was able to get elected to the leadership of the Labour party. He is one of only five survivors. Almost every one of the 69 who has not been claimed by death or the Social Democratic party—which is almost the same thing—has gone. That legacy haunted us, and this deal will haunt the Tory party.
On the BBC news this morning I heard some of the broadcast from the Swindon Conservative association. I heard the applause, the jubilation in Swindon—

Mrs. Currie: Slough.

Mr. Livingstone: I beg your pardon—Slough. There was jubilation among the Tory audience when they heard that their Government had been defeated. The rank and file members of the Tory party, the core Tory vote, do not support the treaty. I remember seeing the late lain Macleod, as local government election results were coming ill on television one night in the mid-I960s and the Scottish

National party was making great advances and a Labour Government were in power, having it put to him that that was bad news for the Tories. His reply was that any swing to nationalism was good for the Tories because the Tory party was the English nationalist party.
That is the divide. Labour is an internationalist party. When Clem Attlee retired, he did not say that he was going to spend more time with his family. If we read his biography, we see that he wanted to devote more time to rebuilding the idealism of the United Nations' move towards global government. There are broad internationalist instincts in all of us on these Benches. It is inevitable that we should be attracted towards European and various other international projects, but the gut, core basis of the Conservative party is English nationalism. The Conservatives are betraying their nationalism today.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Livingstone: No, I shall not give way again. I am about to conclude my speech.
The Tories are betraying their English nationalism today. There will be bitterness in every constituency association. The rebels who will be humiliated today by being driven through the Lobby will never forgive and will continue to organise. This will be short-term victory. The victory gained today will result in defeat for the Conservative party at the next general election.

Mr. Jack Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you provide the House with some assistance? Earlier today, the question of assisted area status was raised on a point of order. Is the House aware that this morning correspodence was sent to the local authorities in my constituency, at least, regarding assisted area status? I understand that we are not to be informed about that in the House until Monday. Is that not again an example of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) talked about his party in a way that I could not recognise. He said that it is an international party, but I remember when the Labour party was most anti-European. It was only with great difficulty that the original European legislation, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was passed. It is true that 69 Labour Members of Parliament voted for the original treaty of Rome. Apart from them, it was always the Conservative party that was keen on Europe.
There has, however, been a consistent division within our party about Europe, for understandable and patriotic reasons. However, it has gone too far. Tactics were used during the passage of the Maastricht Bill that were very different from those used when we considered the treaty of Rome. At that time, there was most strenuous opposition from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I remember that Derek Walker-Smith and others in the Conservative party opposed the treaty most strenuously, but they never opposed it on grounds of procedure; nor, so far as I can recollect, did they ever vote for something in which they did not believe.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Hordern: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Last night we saw, not for the first time, some of my hon. Friends vote in favour of the social chapter which they, above all, resist and resent. They did so for a tactical consideration because they thought that to do so would result in defeat for the Act. It was wrong to do that. When the Government were defeated last night in the second Division, the vote did not represent the views of the House. There is no majority in the House for the social chapter. It was, therefore, absolutely right for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make this issue a matter of confidence in Her Majesty's Government and to connect with it the social chapter. This business needs to be sorted out once and for all.
We devoted an enormous amount of time to consideration of the Act. Many comments during this debate, and others, have been made about that. We held separate debates on the question of the referendum. I know of no Parliament in the European Community that has given such careful consideration to this matter as the House of Commons. We all have different views about the meaning of the Maastricht treaty, so how could the Government have put forward a simple proposition to which the people of our country could respond yea or nay? I do not believe that such a proposition would be possible and, moreover, we would be evading our responsibilities unless we were to consider the treaty in detail and arrive at our conclusion after the most careful consideration.

Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He mentioned our former colleague, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, later Lord Broxbourne, who was not only a principled opponent but, once the decision had been taken, became an active member of the delegated European Parliament, to which he made a most constructive contribution.

Sir Peter Hordern: That is true. I hope that after today's vote we shall all be able to take a much more constructive and realistic approach to the European Community and the intergovernmental conference. That is necessary, and it is certainly necessary for our party.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I want to add emphasis to what my right hon. Friend has said. Continental parliamentarians view the process that we have been going through with some bewilderment, but they admire enormously the detailed way in which we have considered the treaty, which is unparalleled in Europe.

Sir Peter Hordern: Of course that is so, and the whole House knows that it is so. It was right that we gave the Bill endless consideration, but it is now right to reach a conclusion.
I wish to say a word about the social contract. I am not talking about its interpretations, which are many and various, but many people say that all the other European Parliaments and Governments are in favour of the social chapter, and I am sure that that is true; but employers and business men, large and small, throughout the Community are becoming increasingly concerned about the costs of labour and of conducting business. It is an example of Euro-sclerosis. European companies are increasingly investing overseas because the costs of employment in the Community are becoming prohibitive.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the issue, therefore, is jobs. We must carefully weigh the social improvements. I am not against them. Indeed, I think that there is clearly room for improvements in social matters, and I have no doubt that they will be introduced, but surely it is better that they should be introduced by individual countries. After all, we have a long history of social improvement, especially in health and safety, and under the Single European Act various improvements were made to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We found no difficulty in accepting those improvements, for the good reason that we had already adopted most of them.
We must, however, be very careful about the extra costs that would be imposed by the social chapter. Irrespective of whether we opt out, it is a matter which must concern all of us as Europeans. As a director of a large European company and chairman of the United Kingdom subsidiary, I am aware of the increasing concern about investing in Europe and how attractive it has become to invest in other parts of the world. I feel sure that that trend will continue and it is bound to have an impact on employment.

Mr. Frank Cook: I should like to put to the right hon. Member the case that I put yesterday might not European transnationals, which can offer their British work force rates of pay, conditions of work and health and safety requirements below European requirements, experience more industrial unrest because they are selling their British work force short compared with workers across the channel?

Sir Peter Hordern: I do not believe that that is so. We pay our social costs in a different way from other European Community countries. We pay much more through Customs and Excise duties than through direct charges on companies. It is important to bear that in mind.
Let us consider the amount of investment that we are able to attract into our country. Some 70,000 extra jobs have been created through Japanese companies. The great majority of American and Japanese investment in this country has been made as a result of the excellent terms of employment and the competitive conditions that we have created, not least because of the low levels of direct taxation and corporation tax. Other countries find the United Kingdom extremely attractive for investment, and I very much hope that they will continue to do so.
I have a word of warning for my hon. Friends who oppose not only Maastricht, but the European Community itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said that he had been opposed to the Community for six years. But I recollect his voting in favour of the Single European Act. He was absolutely right to do so, and I do not object to that. Like many of us, he thought that it would be right to have a large market of 340 million people and break down the barriers between the various countries. But it was the Single European Act which introduced majority voting to the European Council of Ministers. The Single European Act gave the Brussels Commission so much more power to issue directives, from which so much trouble has flowed.
We must never make ourselves so antipathetic to the European Community that we endanger the level of investment from other countries. Unless we show ourselves to be part of the European Community—indeed,


leaders of it—why should other countries believe that we form a proper part of the growing market which we all wish to see? I say that from personal experience—I have been chairman of a large oil company in this country for six years. That company has a substantial refinery on Humberside, which alone, pays Customs and Excise duty of £60 million a month. If it were ever thought that we were unwilling members of the European Community, the additional investment required to improve our refineries would not be forthcoming because the company would feel that we were not interested in our prosperity. That would not happen immediately, because the parent company would wish to protect its investment, but it would ultimately happen.
My hon. Friends may carry opposition to Europe so far, but they should never carry it so far that it works against the interests of our fellow countrymen.

Miss Joan Lestor: I have been in the House long enough and read enough political diaries to know how easily history is rewritten. We never had a referendum in this country on the issue of entering the EEC. We had a referendum on whether to remain in the EEC, which is a different concept and has a different psychological effect on people. We have never had a referendum on the Maastricht treaty to put the issue to the British people. The treaty was not ready until after last year's general election, so it could not possibly have been put before the people. I shall not pursue that issue; suffice it to say that people should not rewrite history—some of us remember it as we have been around a long time.
One finds some interesting things lying around the Lobby. I found the briefing document for the Conservative party. It is so bad that hardly anybody has used it, but I shall paraphrase what it contains, as it is interesting. It states that today's vote is a matter of confidence in the Government, and on that issue, every Conservative should support the Government because if they are defeated there will be a general election. It states that the treaty will be ratified by Britain, and only the continuance of a Conservative Government can guarantee that it will be ratified without the job-destroying social chapter. One or two hon. Members mentioned that. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] We shall see.
The Government's attempt to portray the social chapter as a monster with an uncontrollable appetite for jobs does not hold water. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, it also does not have as its objective the devastation of what the Govrenment have left of the British economy. It talks about basic rights, about decent working conditions, about consultation between employers and labour and about equality of treatment for men and women. I am surprised by the two hon. Ladies who have spoken today. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) let the cat out of the bag. She said that it was all a question of jobs and that they came first. She said that it was not a question of pay.
When we debated equal pay for women and anti-sex-discrimination laws, the arguments used were that we could not afford it. It was said that it was really more important that women should be paid at low rates than

that we should have to face the competition if they were treated equally with men. It was not equal pay which destroyed this economy. It was not anti-discrimination laws which destroyed this economy.
When the Labour Government left office, we had unemployment of 1·3 million. The figure has never been as low as that since. When we wanted to take little boys out of chimneys, we were told, "Oh my God, it will cost so much money that there will be unemployment." Every time that there is a decent proposal for a piece of social legislation, somebody says that it will cost us dear. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South and her hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) have benefited from equal pay. They should be the first to defend the rights of workers when we are in Europe.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: I will not give way to the hon. Lady. I asked her to give way to me and she would not do so. Let us have no more of this rubbish.

Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: I will not give way even to the hon. Gentleman, however charming he may be. I only have a few minutes, so he can see me afterwards in the Lobby.
The social chapter is modest in its proposals. It involves legislation on working conditions and on equality, but it excludes the right to strike and rates of pay. I should like the social chapter to be stronger. Now that we are in Europe, we are entitled to the best protective legislation for all the workers in Europe.
The briefing that I read while waiting to speak says that the social chapter would take us back 20 years. I would not mind going back 20 years to the Labour Government. We had jobs then and we had a great deal of security. There are many people who would not mind going back to that. When Conservative Members talk about health and safety legislation, I ask them who introduced it. Let us be careful not to rewrite too much history.
The Government seem to take the view that protective legislation would destroy the rights of people in this country and they say that we want to do it ourselves. They say that we do not want to be dictated to by Brussels and that we do not want such matters determined by people outside here. The Government have had 14 years to do some of those things themselves. They squandered all the benefits of North sea oil and they have sold many of this country's assets. Poverty has increased and there has been an increase in the number of businesses collapsing. We have seen children and adults living in abject poverty.
Eleven other countries cannot be mad. It is dangerous for anyone, especially Prime Ministers, to say, "I am the one who is right. Everybody else is wrong." That is a very dangerous concept.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: I will not give way. Nobody gave way when I tried to intervene. We have a very short time.

Mr. Heald: Afterwards in the Lobby?

Miss Lestor: I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards in the Lobby.
Let us get one or two facts straight about the need for protective legislation for workers. One quarter of Europe's poorest people are United Kingdom citizens. On any table


that is used, one in four United Kingdom citizens live in poverty and 4 million of them are children. The wages councils have been abolished. Even with the 32 changes in the classification of unemployment, it has changed little over the years. One fifth of Europe's unemployed live in this country. Our Commission on Social Justice has shown that the gap between rich and poor in this country in 1993, 14 years after a Tory Government came to power, is greater than it has been for 107 years. Yet the Government are telling us that we must leave these matters to them. We have left it to them for far too long. This whole debate has debased politics and it has debased the Conservative party. The Government have wriggled and have done all sorts of things that no politician in this country should do.
What we are asking in connection with the social chapter is simple. The chapter contains a requirement to
take account of the diverse forms of national practice, in particular in the fields of contractual relations, and the need to maintain competitiveness in the Community economy.
That is what we are asking for, and I shall never understand how the Government can have failed to accept that.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Low wages do not equal low costs. Japan is a high-wage but a low-cost economy. It is a high-wage, low-cost economy not because of any social chapter and not because of employment regulations but because it is an intensely productive economy and so can afford high wages and good conditions in the workplace. Surely that is the key point that Opposition Members have missed. Wages and conditions must be matched by productivity, and less productive countries can only compete on low-added-value, less sophsisticated goods. If wages and conditions are out of line with productivity, the result is unemployment. The classic example is Spain, which has some of the toughest labour regulation laws but the highest incidence of involuntary redundancy and some of the highest unemployment in Europe.
How does one achieve productivity in one's economy? One does not achieve it by means of social charters or labour regulation but by providing a good education and high levels of investment. The Leader of the Opposition groped towards a realisation of that in his speech yesterday, but refused to accept the implications of it, although they are clear. First, we need to carry on reforming our education to make it more rigorous so that we improve the quality of our work force. Labour has opposed every education reform that we have introduced —although it has belatedly done some U-turns.
Secondly, we need investment. Where does investment come from? It comes from savings. It is no coincidence that Japan and the successful economies of east Asia have some of the highest levels of savings in the world. Savings are the pool from which investment comes. High levels of saving also bear down on inflation and consumption and help the productive side of an economy. What has Labour's policy on savings been? It clobbered savers in the 1970s, with huge taxes and negative interest rates. Have the Opposition learnt anything since then? They came to the electorate last year proposing an investment income surcharge, so that anyone who saved would be taxed once when they earned the money and a further whack when they saved it. That is how far Labour has come. If the state spends too much, the state will crowd out private

investment. Yet Labour's policy is a policy of higher public spending. Similarly, if the state taxes too much, it will crowd out private investment.

Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oppenheim: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I do not have time; I think that he understands the constraints of time. What is Labour's policy on tax? It is to raise taxes, which would mean less saving and less investment.
Labour Members still do not accept the need for investment and they do not seem to accept the need for a successful investment-led industrial sector. Yesterday, we heard them sneer every time a business man or a trade organisation was quoted. They still sneer at success and they asked us yesterday why we mention business men so often. I will tell them why. We mention business men because it is business men—and business women—who employ people. They are the ones who create the employment. The Leader of the Opposition accused us yesterday—

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oppenheim: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot because other hon. Members are hoping to speak.
The Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that we were working towards a sweatshop economy. But we in this country enjoy higher wages and better conditions by far than when Labour was in power and, contrary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claims, we have higher standards and better conditions than most EC countries. Even where, technically, EC countries have better conditions, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal do not enforce them.
We have been able to achieve better conditions because, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, we have in the past 15 years made up much of the ground that we lost in the previous decades. In the 1960s and 1970s, productivity in manufacturing grew at the lowest level of all the G7 countries. In the 1980s, we achieved the highest level of growth—higher even than in Japan.
In the 1970s, when Labour was in power, manufacturing output fell. In the 1980s, we had the fastest growth of manufacturing output of any major industrial country with the exception of Japan. We have made up some of the lost ground. We may lag behind some of the leading countries, but we have caught up considerably since 1979.
What about protection for workers? The best protection for workers is not edicts from politicians; it is a good education so that employers will compete for them. If employers can invest more because there is a larger pool of savings in the economy, employers will employ more people. That is the best protection for workers and that is what happens in Japan. Employment regulations in Japan are minimal, but conditions in large companies—as the Leader of the Opposition admitted yesterday—are among the best in the world. Unemployment in Japan is 3 per cent. and all without the social chapter.
Opposition Members have argued that the European Community needs a social dimension to counter benefits to business of the single market. In that, there is an assumption that the single market does not benefit


workers. However, of course, it does. It benefits them as consumers and producers. Protection does not ultimately benefit employees, as employees have discovered in the most protected economies such as those in India and Brazil.
If we protect inputs to industry, such as steel and semiconductors, we will simply put workers out of business in the car industry, which uses steel, and in the electronics industry, which uses semiconductors. That is why Conservative Members opposed further protection for the coal industry. If we protect coal miners from foreign competition or from competition from gas, we will put workers out of jobs all over the country because they rely on energy as a basic input to their industries.
Even more economically illiterate than the argument that we need a social dimension because the single market does not benefit workers is the argument that we need a level playing field of standardised social conditions for fair competition. Does that mean that we should not trade with Bangladesh because it has lower wages than we have? Does it mean that the Americans have the right to say that they will not buy Jaguar cars or Rolls-Royce aero engines because we pay our workers less than they do?
The logic in that is that there should be trade only with countries that have identical conditions to ours. That would affect less developed countries. It would prevent them from developing and from being able to afford the higher added-value, more sophisticated goods that we want to sell to them.
The danger in this debate is that the European Community and, to a large extent, Opposition Members are missing the point. Instead of concentrating on improving education, on the quality of the work force, on reducing Government deficits and on encouraging saving and hence investment in industry, they think that we can have rigid standards and hide from foreign competition behind protective walls.
That is a fool's game. The last occasion when similar policies were pursued was in the 1930s. We are in danger of pursuing those policies again in relation to eastern Europe. At the very time when those eastern European countries are struggling to turn their economies into market economies, we are telling them that they can sell to us, but only the goods in respect of which they are not competitive. With regard to textiles, steel or commodity chemicals, we raise barriers.
To the successful Asian economies we say, "All right, you can sell to us, but we'll put quotas and heavy tariffs on semiconductors, electronic goods and cars." That is the road down which the Community is going and it has unpleasant echoes of the late 1920s and 1930s.
The Opposition's attitude is irrelevant to the needs of the country and to the European Community. Last night, the Opposition in effect voted against Maastricht, despite the fact that they have told us that they are in favour of it. That should come as no surprise, bearing in mind the history of twisting and turning which has characterised Labour's policy on the European Community over the past 20 years.
Just to defeat the Government last night might have given Opposition Members a certain short-lived pleasure -I do not begrudge them that—but it contributed nothing to the debate. The speech by the Leader of the Opposition

—it was great knockabout, do not get me wrong; it would have gone down very well in a minor Glasgow magistrates court—had no substance. It was a triumph of pomposity over substance and it added nothing to the debate. It brought Parliament into disrepute and did nothing to take the European Community forward.

Mr. Frank Cook: I must correct the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). Last night, the Opposition voted to reject the opt out of the social protocol. That is what we voted for and that is what we effectively delivered. Today's debate is a separate issue, as the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) reminded us.
I was present throughout yesterday's debate, except for 12 minutes when I took a cuppa and a sandwich in the Tea Room. I have heard all the exchanges today, except during two periods when I was speaking on the telephone behind the Chair. I make no complaint about being present all that time, because I had the privilege of hearing the provocative contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) yesterday, and the incisive contribution by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He made some interesting comments on the situation across the Irish channel.
I must associate myself in part with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). He questioned the reason for the sudden change of allegiance of the Ulster Unionists. It is significant that they have been absent almost all today and that they made no attempt to contribute to yesterday's debate. I heard it said that they had three speeches but did not know which to deliver. One was in favour, one was against, and one was in case of an abstention. When I put it to one of them—I will not identify him—that they had decided to vote for the Government, he said yes. I said, "Why? Was it a deal?" He said, "Not a deal, more a commitment." As my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead said, the population of Ireland generally will be very interested to know just what was worth the 30 pieces of silver.
Yesterday, we heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). It was a very moving display of personal sadness and clear logic. I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he must be feeling wretched today, unless of course he has been thoroughly sedated by the sledgehammer that the Prime Minister is using to drag his allegiance back into line. Today, we have had the benefit of speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), not to mention that of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who was clearly very upset at having fought so valiantly but having to come into line under such a draconian threat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead paid tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I associate myself with that tribute. Indeed, I pay tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The manner in which you patiently conducted the protracted Committee proceedings was an example to everyone who has occupied your office. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank you for that.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I made yesterday, but I draw attention to one that was partly answered by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I referred to European transnationals being allowed to create a climate in this country that would enable them to deliver to their work force conditions which were below the European requirement. The right hon. Member for Horsham simply denied it.
I suggested yesterday that ICI would never countenance that, because it provided for its staff to an extent that far exceeded European requirements. I know that that is true; I have direct experience. I was surprised when the Minister prayed in aid what Sir Denys Henderson had said. I could not accept it yesterday; I am afraid that I must accept it today. I spent some of my time behind the Chair talking to Sir Denys at some length, and put to him some of the points that I made yesterday. Conservative Members seem to think that funny; I do not. The anxiety felt by ICI's work force is now being transmitted to the head of the company.
Sir Denys said to me, "Frank, we did not want to be pressed into a jelly mould of German making. You know that our pay and conditions, and the protective regulations introduced under our joint consultative procedure, are far better than those operating elsewhere in Europe." Of course I knew that as I have said, I have direct experience in this regard. But that is not the point. The point is that ICI's work force will see allegiance to a declaration accepting inferior standards in only one way: they will see it as an intention to move towards such standards.
I suggested to Sir Denys that such firms as ICI might run foul of the European anti-dumping laws. "Which anti-dumping laws?" he asked. I had to tell him of my numerous trips to Brussels and Strasbourg to plead for inward investment in my constituency by foreign firms that might be in danger of undercutting European producers. We had to secure quotas to ensure that our home-based industries were not threatened. Sir Denys was surprised at what I told him.
1 also told Sir Denys that if we did not adopt the social protocol, we would not be able to engage in discussions following international debate at a later stage. "Yes, that is a risk," he said, in a manner that suggested that he had not thought of that before.
Far from fearing a jelly mould of German making, Sir Denys Henderson should fear a jelly mould of the Prime Minister's making. He told me, "When I discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, I did not realise that I would be quoted in the House."

Dr. Reid: That is very interesting.

Mr. Cook: Indeed it is. But Sir Denys knew full well that he would be quoted today.
Representing the House on the North Atlantic Assembly, I am privileged to meet delegates from other Parliaments throughout the NATO countries, both socially and formally. What started four or five years ago as a joke among the Dutch, Germans, French and Danes —the joke being that Great Britain was not so bloody great any more—has ceased to be a joke, right across the political spectrum. No one laughs any more.
Discussing the social chapter under a confidence motion tabled by a discredited Prime Minister does this country no credit; indeed, it devalues it even further

Sir Edward Heath: As we move towards the end of the debate and the history of the Maastricht treaty in the House, I should like to concentrate the mind of the House on one point. Before doing that, I wish to say that, in taking this action, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has acted with complete honesty and great integrity. What he has done is right. What is more, he has acted speedily and has put the whole situation in the hands of the House. For that he is to be loudly and widely commended.
Some Opposition Members honestly and understandably claim that this situation weakens the Prime Minister. After the Division, which we shall win, his position will he immensely strengthened because people will recognise that he has acted speedily and boldly and has done the right thing.
I said that I wanted to concentrate on one point. I do not propose to enter into the argument about the social chapter because my reservations about it are already widely known and were mentioned in the debate by the Leader of the Opposition. There must be much more study in this country in relation to our colleagues in the Community. I hope that after the debate, and after the Act is put into effect and the treaty ratified, we shall be able to concentrate on that important factor, not purely from the party political point of view of trying to outdo each other, but to get to the basic facts of life, which are essential for our constituents and voters.
I do not propose to deal in great detail with the general question of the Maastricht treaty, because there is now an Act of Parliament: the Bill has received Royal Assent. There is much to be developed from the treaty. I am tempted to deal with many of the issues that have been raised, but I shall try to restrain my interest in them. One of my hon. Friends said that this started as a free trade area. We started the free trade area in 1958 because we were not prepared to go into the Community, and that free trade area failed. Therefore, we decided to apply for membership of the Community.
The Community, rather than the treaties of Rome and Paris, has always been a community and not a free trade area, and any attempt today to turn it into just a free trade area is bound to fail because the other EC members want to retain it as a community. If we are to develop economically, we must have a community structure. That is not to argue by any means that the Community is perfect.
I was somewhat taken aback by the argument of one of my wise hon. Friends that we must not rush. We need make only one comparison, the single market, which was created in just over six years. A large part of that was due to the drive by the European Commission and its President, Jacques Delors, who deserves the highest praise. We have spent six years trying to decide where the fast railway link is to go from the channel tunnel, and we have still not reached a decision on it.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman did not want it.

Sir Edward Heath: I certainly did not, and nor did my constituents.
I wish that we could rush forward many of the developments that the country needs. There is no reason why, in an ever-changing world, we should blame the


Community for adapting as speedily as it can to the new world in which we have to operate. Maastricht will allow us to do that.
We have to maintain our friends inside the Community, but we are not doing that at the moment. That is one of the hard facts that we have to face.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have congratulated the House on the wonderful way that it has spent 18 months dealing with Maastricht. With great respect, those outside do not think that a glorious thing. All the reports today say that people are bemused by what went on last night. People have said that they want democracy, but those in Europe ask whether that is the sort of democracy they want. We must develop Maastricht.
Another point arises from all this. There is obviously an enormous amount to be done to inform people not only about the Maastricht treaty but about the work of the European Community and its Commissioners. There is profound ignorance—

Mr. Skinner: We do not like it.

Sir Edward Heath: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like it, but, thank God, his view is not characteristic of the British people. Once Maastricht is settled, we can devote ourselves, as busily and as energetically as we can, to dealing not only with Maastricht but with all the activities of the Community. That is badly needed by everyone in the country.
1 come now to my major point. I have not dealt in any detail with those two points because they are not the matter at issue in the debate or in the Divisions that are to come. It has been said today that last night showed that there was a complete majority for the social chapter. That was not the case at all. The vote on the social chapter was either decided on a tie or lost by one vote. As is well known, Conservative Members who are completely opposed to it voted in favour of the motion.

Mr. Skinner: What difference does that make to the vote?

Sir Edward Heath: There is a difference, to which I am coming.
We must not mislead ourselves or Europe by saying that, because of the vote, there is a complete majority in the House for the social chapter. People in Europe know perfectly well what the situation was. Today, we face one issue, and one issue only—the survival of the Conservative Government. That is what the vote will be about. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will recognise that that is the issue. It is no longer a question of the social chapter or the treaty itself. The treaty is enacted and will come into force as soon as the House takes the decision about the social chapter.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who have fought this battle all the way through hold their position. They are against the social chapter, and that is what the vote will be about today. How, then, can they possibly cross the Floor and vote in favour of it, thereby helping to defeat their Government? I do not believe that that can happen.
We hear talk about democracy, but it is not democracy if a small group defies and brings to nothing the major

decisions taken by the House on Second Reading and again on Third Reading. Those were democratic decisions. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that.
We hear talk of principles. How can it be in accordance with one's principles to vote with the Opposition in favour of something to which one is, on principle, absolutely opposed? How can that possibly be right? It cannot be sustained for one moment.
The vote today concerns the future of the Conservative Government and of our party, and my right hon. and hon. Friends must support the Prime Minister and the Government. I have been a member of the Conservative party for almost 60 years, through good times and bad times, in government and out of government. I believe profoundly and passionately in it. I do not want it or our Government to be brought to an end by a small minority in our parliamentary party.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that he sets an example. When we negotiated entry to Europe, he was a member of my Government. When we decided to enter, he resigned. That was honourable. When the legislaiton had passed through both Houses and the treaty was signed, I invited him to come back to my Government, and he did so. That, too, was honourable. He had lost the battle and he accepted it. I have always respected him for that. I suggest to him and others of my hon. Friends who have fought the battle that the same course should be pursued on this occasion. They have lost the battle and they should now show that they accept the decision, vote with the Government, support the Prime Minister and support the party. I ask and urge them to do so.

Mr. John Gunnell: I shall be brief as I want to make only one major point, which I shall illustrate from experience. I have no confidence in the Government and I believe that the mess from which they are trying to extract themselves is a mess of their own creation because of the way that they have chosen to handle the social protocol.
The Government originally chose to treat the social chapter in a way that would gain the support of the nationalists in their party and bring them on stream. That backfired. Now, people are confused about the social chapter and many falsely believe that it will cost jobs. Had the Prime Minister listened to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) when they spoke of the social chapter, he would have realised that an alternative position was available. He could have accepted and supported the social chapter and persuaded the country to recognise that it could be used to benefit employment in Britain.
I shall illustrate that assertion from my experience of 12 years as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association, an organisation financially supported by Government. Throughout those 12 years I spent a great deal of time working with Conservative Members at the Department of Trade and Industry in an attempt to win Japanese inward investment. Over those years I made many visits to Japan and I dealt with many Japanese companies. I was rewarded by a number of those companies coming to Yorkshire and Humberside, notably Citizen, Pioneer and Koyo Sieko—companies that have


created substantial employment. Despite meeting re-presentatives from many Japanese companies over the years, no one has ever asked me about a social contract, the details of the social chapter or the way in which it would affect the way that those companies worked in this country. Time and again, I was asked about Britain's membership of the Community and, knowing that I was a Labour Member of Parliament, about the certainty of our continued membership and therefore the security of those companies' investment in this country. Community membership matters to those companies, not the precise terms of the social chapter.
Those Japanese companies have created for their employees conditions that are vastly superior to those that would be determined by the social chapter. When it comes to health and safety at work, employee information and productivity—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—Japanese industrialists make clear to their work forces in this country what are their productivity targets and achievements. The three major Japanese companies in Yorkshire and on Humberside all provide proper working conditions and employee information, and they consider health and safety a priority.
To believe that the social chapter would turn away Japanese inward investment is to misunderstand the relationship between a Japanese company and its work force. We may regard that relationship as somewhat paternalistic, but the Japanese insist on effective trade union representation. They demand to deal with only one trade union, but they want conditions spelt out and believe in rewarding their work force. Japanese employers do not make the distinction between management and employees that is to be found in many British companies, and Japanese companies will continue to be successful for that reason.

Mr. Nigel Evans: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to the companies that say that they could not afford the costs of implementing the social chapter?

Mr. Gunnell: If the Prime Minister took the view that the social chapter was a positive innovation in ensuring proper health and safety and working conditions, and equality of employment for men and women, and was something for which he should strive for the good of the economy, the fear of the social chapter that exists among industrialists would be dispelled. The comments made by Conservative Members sitting below the Gangway and by other right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House should encourage the public to recognise the chapter's positive advantages.
My experience of inward investment goes beyond Japanese companies. The social chapter is not a barrier of any kind to inward investment. The Conservatives went wrong in the way that the Prime Minister chose to use the social chapter issue to unite those on the right of his party. That backfired, and the right hon. Gentleman is left with the difficulties that confront him today.
Courage is needed to accept the social chapter and to ensure that Britain moves forward, to enjoy increased and full employment, and is a country in which there are optimum working and health and safety conditions and equality of employment. The opportunity lost to the

Government is represented by the lack of confidence in the way in which they are led and in which they lead the country.

Mr. George Robertson: Initially, I felt slightly uncomfortable about speaking in this debate in this immensely important position, but I have been able to diagnose the problem: it is, I think, the first time in 10 years that I have spoken in daylight, and that is probably only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has laryngitis.
As many right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have said, this has been a unique debate. The circumstances that have led up to it and the circumstances that provoked it yesterday have all been unique, certainly in my parliamentary lifetime. In many ways, the two debates have lived up to the character and importance of the subject matter.
The debate still arises out of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 and the House's decision that a final vote would be taken on whether this country would opt in to the part of the Maastricht treaty from which the Government had opted us out. It is to be the only opportunity for the House to make that decision. The debate then became about the rights of Parliament and whether the view of the House, as it would have been expressed if the amendment had been carried last night, was, in terms of its strict instructions to the Government and ratification of the treaty on European union, to be carried out and whether the will of the House was to be obeyed or defied by the Government. That was and remains a most important, serious and even fundamental issue.
The Government's implied threat—they got as close to it as they possibly could—that they would have defied the will of the elected House of Commons can now unfortunately be tested only if right hon. and hon Members vote for the Opposition's amendment this afternoon.
It is still the same amendment; it still offers exactly the same opportunities. Some of those who believe in parliamentary sovereignty and campaigned against the Maastricht treaty have done so only on the basis of a belief in, and what they call a cherishing of, parliamentary sovereignty. They should perhaps take this opportunity to see whether the leadership of their party believes in parliamentary sovereignty as much as they and the British people do.
The debate has gone beyond all that and is now an issue of confidence in the Government. If the Government lose this afternoon, the Prime Minister says that the Queen will be asked to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Let me tell the Prime Minister, or his surrogates as he is absent, that I can say with some force that millions and millions of people who are listening to and watching our debate will be of one mind and will have one message for the Conservative party: let us have an election; vote for an election. Of course, the Government's claim is only a ploy, a dangerous, over-the-top, desperate ploy to push through a policy when the Prime Minister has lost the argument, lost the case, lost his majority, lost authority and now, visibly, lost his nerve too. One of the elements of this


unique set of debates has been the sight of scrambling contenders for a throne that is already seen to be grotesquely unsafe.
The serious question with which the Prime Minister must deal, because he did not do so in his two speeches, is what precisely he is telling his party and the country. What are these confused signals supposed to mean?
I am the greatest Euro-sceptic of all
said the Prime Minister to the Tory party conference, yet he is the man who is
at the heart of Europe".
Those who are still sceptical and harbour doubts—I know that they are in the Chamber this afternoon—should read carefully the words of the Prime Minister yesterday in praise of Europe, of a deepening of Europe and of being a part of Europe, and then wonder what they will be voting for and what the Prime Minister's victory will be deployed as when he achieves the result that, specuation has it, he will achieve.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the only Minister who said, "We will never sign the social chapter." He was dismissed. Who knows whether he was dismissed for saying that? The Foreign Secretary has not said it. We invited him to say exactly that in numerous debates, but at no stage would he put his authority behind such a statement.
There is one lesson that those who are experts on the railways will give to the Prime Minister, a lesson that would have come well from the former Member of Parliament for Christchurch, Mr. Robert Adley: if we give mixed signals, the train can come off the track. That is precisely the danger and the problem that faced the Prime Minister.
Some of us wondered why the Foreign Secretary did not speak in last night's debate. There was a mystery there. The Foreign Secretary is a man who writes mystery books as a reserve second profession, guarding against the prospect of retirement or dismissal from the Cabinet. We thought that because the names "Hurd" and "Hunt" are similar, a word processor error had led to the Secretary of State for Employment winding up last night's debate.
Then we thought—this was extremely generous of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland—that the reason might be that the Foreign Secretary was a man of honour. In the debate on 22 April he said
We have no difficulty in accepting the challenge with which the proposers of new clause 74 present us. It is reasonable that the House should want the opportunity to vote on the principle of the social protocol. New clause 74, which we are debating today, offers such an opportunity." —[official Report, 22 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 548–49.]
We had some expectation that honour would triumph and that, as the only Minister who had been willing to say that he would obey the will of Parliament, he had perhaps disqualified himself, but I fear that now we know the truth. The senior fireman has been deployed because the Government knew all along that they would lose yesterday, so he had to be kept in reserve.
In the course of the Foreign Secretary's other occupation, he occasionally allows his inner feelings to be revealed. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Those inner feelings are of considerable importance. In his last book — [Interruption.] I ask the House to listen carefully—the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.] We can tell a lot about

the Conservatives and how uncomfortable they are because of the situation in which they find themselves. [Interruption.] They should listen. In his last novel "The Palace of Enchantment" the Foreign Secretary described the career of a disillusioned Foreign Office Minister who had fallen out with his Prime Minister, his wife and his constituents. The Minister went to Africa. "Edward abstracted himself", the book says. It adds:
He had a speech typed fair in front of him, produced by Sally in a neat folder from the depths of her despatch case … He put nothing of himself into it.
[Interruption.] They do not want to listen. The author went on:
A hopeless little fraud of a speech, but all that was possible on the present policy. Sir Reginald Anson had been right in saying it was not an occasion for a minister.
We now know why the Government deployed the Foreign Secretary—the chief salesman of the unacceptable—to try to tidy up the mess that was created behind him.
This debate is still about the social chapter. The Prime Minister devoted a substantial chunk of his speech to the issue of the social chapter, little daring to trespass on the other record of the Government that might be on trial in the debate. The social chapter, to many hon. Members and to many outside the House, is the defining difference between the political parties represented in the House—an attitude that says, "We shall compete at the cheapest, lowest quality end of any market and not at the high-quality, high-price end, on which all of our competitors in western Europe have built their prosperity." The vote is not just about confidence in the Government; it is about confidence in the attitude of a Government.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should understand that Conservative Members care every bit as much as he does about investing in the quality and future of our labour force, which is why we have made such a priority of the expansion of further and higher education. Will he explain why the Labour party wants to transfer responsibility for social and employment policy from the Government to Brussels? Is it because, whatever veneer of reform may be applied to the Labour party, he and his hon. Friends despair of its ever being returned to Government?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman must answer this: why do the Germans, who have a right-wing Government, and the French, who now have a right-wing Government, still believe that it is important to have a level playing field not only for business but for people? Perhaps if the Government had invested in people, education, training and higher education in the past 14 years, we would not be sitting here looking at others' record of success compared with our miserable record of failure.
I remind the House that the vote on the social chapter was not offered willingly. The debate was not offered to the House by a democrat Prime Minister who wants to ensure that the House endorses the centre point of the triumph of diplomacy for which he was responsible. No, the vote was squeezed out of a reluctant Government who, throughout the ratification process, have dodged any vote on the social chapter and any opportunity that would allow the House to make a decision on that in which the Prime Minister, and perhaps occasionally the Foreign Secretary, believes.
The debate was conceded under duress, but the Government. who did not want a vote, and who would have avoided a vote, still tell us that this is an


inconvenience to Parliament. They had the effrontery to tell the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) yesterday that by voting against a motion that endorsed the Government's policy on the opt out he was, and we all were, voting against ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Foreign Secretary told us that he welcomed the challenge and the opportunity of the vote, and he must bear the burden of responsibility for the fact that he was able to get a majority for his policy only by a squalid deal with some political parties on the Opposition side of the House that chose to support him yesterday evening. Eventually, history will tell us what the deal was that persuaded the Ulster Unionist party to move across the House, and history will judge those who participated in it on both sides, because I am sure that there are still many chickens to come home to roost.
That procedure was only the culmination of a long process of dithering during the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. There was the opt out, way back in December 1991, when even the Prime Minister's political friends among the Christian Democratic Heads of Government were critical. In the few days after the Maastricht treaty was signed, Mr. Wilfried Martens, the head of the Christian Democratic Heads of Government, said that he specifically criticised Mr. John Major for having
taken a negative position at Maastricht concerning EUROPEAN political union, and more particularly concerning the social charter".
The chairman of the Conservative party wrote to the husband of one of my hon. Friends to canvass for funds for the Conservative party. The letter stated:
Britain's place in the world is now safeguarded. The key negotiations in Europe and beyond are being carried out by a proven and admired team.
The punchline, presumably designed to deliver the cheque, stated:
British interests are in safe hands.
We then had the paving debate. I have a certain sense of deja vu now—the paving debate involved a completely unnecessary motion which was originally to be a motion of confidence, then it was not, then it was, then it was not, and ultimately it was deemed to be a motion of confidence. In Committee, the Bill was under the custodianship of a Minister who had resigned before discussions on it began in the House, presumably to stop us demanding his resignation every time he blundered—there were plenty of occasions when we could and should have done so. The process has involved defeats, surrenders and retreats—all followed by today's debate and last night's debacle. We now have an Act of Parliament on the statute book, two thirds of which is written by the Labour party, and all the better for it as it strengthens it.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that the public have not understood the procedures that we have deployed. The Labour party set out with two objectives: to ensure that an important treaty was given appropriate coverage and detailed scrutiny in the House of Commons and secondly, to obtain the social chapter for the people of Britain. The Conservative party cannot continue to wriggle away from its responsibilities. They are alone in Europe as the only political party, other than the French National Front and the neo-nazi Republican party in Germany, to oppose the social chapter.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way.
I was responsible for coining the expression, ticking bomb. When I did so nobody could have contemplated that the bomb would go off and leave egg all over the faces of Her Majesty's Government. The Government may well win today because of the threats that have been made. No greater threat can be made than that of collective mass suicide and the withdrawal of the Whip from individual Conservative Members. But those Conservative Members who still have their doubts will still have to live with their consciences when the vote is interpreted tomorrow as a vote for the Prime Minister's European policy. Those hon. Members sitting below the Gangway and slumbering away at the end of our great debate who have been in favour of the social chapter all along, will also have to live with their consciences if they vote against the Labour amendment which presents the only opportunity in the near future for the people of this country to obtain the social chapter.
I hope that there are still those who have sufficient qualms about what they are being asked to do, sufficient spirit and principle and sufficient of the bravery shown by so many hon. Members last night, to stand up for what they believe.
We care deeply for our country and that is why we feel such despair and such disappointment when we see how the Government and the Prime Minister do their business in Europe. The Prime Minister acknowledged that yesterday among his many contradictory signals. It is remarkable that, as the winding-up speeches take place in a confidence debate, the Prime Minister is still not in his place. One wonders whether he is still trying to stitch together yet another deal to save his skin at the end of this afternoon. It is not only wrong, but a discourtesy to the House that he is not here at this point.
In Europe where we live, where we work, where we trade, where we bargain, where we buy and where we sell, we must have a Government who represent the British people. Whether one likes Europe or hates it—there are many on both sides of the argument here—it is where we shall thrive or perish as an economy and as a proud nation. To render us powerless and marginalised has been the hallmark of this Conservative Government, who are always suspected and who are only grudgingly accepted as a partner. Government policy satisfies neither those who hate the Community nor those who love the European neighbourhood in which we are forced to live.
We have ambitions for our country and for its people. We want them to walk tall again in our country in a prosperous Europe. We are confident about Britain's place and Britain's case. We do not share the Tories' miserable lack of confidence. They predicate every negotiation with failure, and every initiative with no chance of amendment, and they see every measure as a threat to the British way of life.
We want our country to lead in Europe and not constantly to lag in the rear. We want to see our country initiating, not preventing, building, not wrecking, and setting the agenda in Europe, not kicking over the tables. We want this country to set the pace for co-operation in Europe. We want our country to get the best of Europe. We are ambitious for Britain and for Britain in Europe.
We invite all Conservative Members, wherever they are, who share that vision and that ambition to join us in the Division Lobby this afternoon.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Before he started on his rather lengthy peroration, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made some remarks about the winding-up speech last night. It is not entirely bizarre that a debate on employment law and practice should be wound up by the Secretary of State for Employment.
This is the last speech—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is the last speech in the last debate on the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was fairly sure of applause for that proposition at least. After months of negotiation and months of debate, the discussion is coming to a close.
I was a little surprised, after this long exercise in parliamentary democracy, to hear the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talk about the death of democracy. At the end of the day, it is not the Queen, not the Government, not the House of Lords, not Mr. Delors and not the electorate in France or in Denmark who have decided this matter on behalf of this country. It is the House of Commons. We have done the job that we have been sent here by our constituents to do, and I do not think that we should be ashamed of that fact.
At last, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the treaty has been passed. It has been signed by the Queen and is part of the law, subject to section 7, which it contained. Last night, the House did not manage to conclude that matter. Once again, by a majority —although only a majority of one—the House refused to endorse the social chapter. The minority included many who disapprove of the social chapter. The Prime Minister and the Government decided that we should not let this matter drift through the summer recess. We decided that we needed to ask the House to resolve it today and that not only the authority of the Government but the reputation of Parliament depended on our doing that.
The basic political difficulty has remained the same throughout. It was evident on Second Reading and it was evident yesterday. Yesterday's debate showed a strong majority in favour of the treaty, as has every major vote, and reflected the Labour party's consistent efforts to force through the social chapter. The Opposition want a socialist Europe and, when push comes to shove, the socialism is more important than the Europe. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have disliked the treaty so much that they have been prepared to back the social chapter in the hope that, by doing so, they could defeat the treaty. That hope has gradually faded. It shrivelled yesterday and it is dead today. I shall return to that just before I conclude.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Foriegn Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: No, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman overran his time and did not give way. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He did.11 am sorry; in that case, I give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Dalyell: What serious answer does the Foreign Secretary give to the question posed first by the Leader of

the Opposition and then by a number of the rest of us? Why, if we need to be "in the same room"—to use my right hon. and learned Friend's phrase—on the rest of European policy, should we suffer by being out of that room and not on the inside track in relation to the social chapter?

Mr. Hurd: That was precisely the point to which I was about to come. The comments of the Leader of the Opposition were echoed, as so often, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The Leader of the Opposition made the point that the hon. Gentleman has just summarised, but he misrepresented our position. We believe that we should be at the heart of the argument in Europe on those matters that the Community needs to discuss and to decide. The Leader of the Opposition implied that that doctrine should be extended and that every domestic matter should be discussed and decided by the Community. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. We believe—and this is the difference between us—that conditions of work, firm by firm and industry by industry, are best decided in this country, and by employers and employees according to their circumstances, and not laid down, perhaps by qualified majority voting, in Brussels, as would happen under the social chapter. That is the difference between us, which was analysed in an exceptional speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who gave a very perceptive account of how modern management views these matters. I need not repeat what my hon. Friend said.
Many Opposition Members seem to think that all that counts is to have the same degree of social protection throughout Europe. It does not seem that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has heard of Asia or Japan or the United States. He does not seem to be aware of the growing concern in Europe about the lack of competitiveness in Europe. It is perfectly true that the debate was slow to start, that employers in Europe were slow to latch on to it and that it has been slow to spread—it has not reached the Labour party yet. An intense debate is going on throughout business circles about how to bring to an end the decrease in the competitiveness of Europe. It has certainly reached the European Community and it has certainly reached Mr. Delors.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I listened to a fascinating analysis by Mr. Delors at the last European summit on precisely this matter. We did not agree with his prescriptions. However, the Opposition would benefit greatly from a little session with him on his analysis to learn how, measurement by measurement and statistic by statistic, Europe has been falling behind in competitiveness over recent years.
The Leader of the Opposition needs a little more information about a boomerang. He accused my right hon. Friend of choosing one. A boomerang, properly employed, stuns its target and then returns shrewdly into the hands of its thrower. It is quite a handy weapon, as we see, indeed, today.
The leader of the Liberal Democratic party chided my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for giving two different messages on the same subject. The theme of that, and who said it, simply lead me to say, "Wow." That from a man who, in almost the same speech, advocates both the reinforcement and the withdrawal of our forces in Bosnia. When it is a matter of deciding which naval base should

refit Trident, the leader of the Liberal Democrats has a very simple choice: Liberals in Scotland back Rosyth and Liberals in the south-west back Devonport.
When it comes to VAT on fuel, if the leader of the Liberal Democrats is talking to an environmental audience, it is a grotesque anomaly that fuel should not be taxed in this country. Of course, when he is talking to an audience of pensioners, it is a gross wickedness that it should be so taxed.
The leader of the Liberal Democratic party really started the debate in this country on the social chapter by the sheer ferocity of his attacks on the social chapter which, in this Session and in respect of this Bill, he has consistently defended. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has the gifts of a master tailor: he is skilled at measuring and fitting his opinions to his audience. His opinions vary as widely as his audiences and, as his audiences vary a great deal, one can never be absolutely sure of his opinions.
Many excellent speeches have been made in the debate. The position has been summed up very well, particularly by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King), for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). They made the point that the treaty of Maastricht is not at stake in this debate. The question, as it was yesterday, is whether the treaty is ratified with or without a social chapter.
I should like for a moment to return to what has undoubtedly been a fierce tussle within our own party. I follow quite closely the very restrained, self-disciplined remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. The opposition to the treaty, and therefore to the legislation, has been strenuously argued through these months—it seems years—by a stalwart group, basing themselves on their convinced interpretation of Conservative tradition. I have heartily disagreed with them. I have often wished them to go away, go to bed and to get lost. However, I do not doubt that their struggle and arguments will find a remembered place in the annals of parliamentary conflict.
I believe that the argument about ratification will end today in success for the Government's arguments. After today, we must all turn to the future and on this point I particularly endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. We have, in the House, in our party, in the country and more widely in Europe, to begin to talk together more intelligently about the future. We are willing to do that and willing to listen carefully to the wide range of views within our party and outside.
But I would not like to end this debate without saying warm thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends who, throughout, have been on the Government's side of the argument. They have been working morning, noon and night to support the Government, to safeguard their and, indeed, my idea of our place in Europe. They might have found that they have gained a little less publicity than the others, but, of course, without their help, we would not have reached this point and we would not have prevailed.
As the talk about the future continues, common ground will begin to emerge. Again, I am talking partly about my own party, but I am talking also about the House as a whole, I am talking about the discussion in Britain as a whole, and I am talking about the discussion in Europe as a whole. The argument is not over, and there will still be those people who hold to what I regard as an

old-fashioned view—that the definition of Europe and the success of Europe, is the steady centralisation of Executive and parliamentary power.
I think that the ideas that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sketched again yesterday and which he, I and others have steadily set forward at Maastricht and ever since are gaining ground—a Europe which is steadily enlarged as a Community not as a super-state, which is founded on open trading, which makes a success of our membership, which means that the Community is successful in those spheres where it has to act as a Community if it is to be effective, which makes a success of the concept in the treaty of intergovernmental co-operation, and which makes a reality of subsidiarity.
We have never argued that Maastricht was a perfect treaty. We believe that we won a sufficient quantity of the arguments in the negotiations to make it a good treaty for Britain, as negotiated by my right hon. Friend with the opt out. I believe that on that foundation, on that basis, as we begin to discuss in the party, in the Government, in the House, in the country and in Europe the way in which the Community should evolve in the future, we will find that the arguments that we began to put at Maastricht and before, and which we have put throughout these debates, will continue to prevail.
But there is a wider point for Conservative Members, because, as my right hon. Friend said, what we are talking about is the survival and the future of this Government. We are, I think, at a turning point. Politicians often use that phrase, but it is apt this afternoon. We have an economic recovery under way. It is not even seriously contested now by the Opposition. The good economic news is actually flowing in faster than either my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government as a whole would have expected. What is important and what is new is that we have a reasonably good chance of sustaining that recovery without inflation.
That situation arises after a year which has been extremely rough, with many misfortunes and, no doubt, a share of mistakes. When I say that I believe that this afternoon can be a turning point, I believe that we can put behind us not just the long, necessary but debilitating debate about Maastricht, but that whole year of roughness and misfortune. Because of the coming together of this debate on Maastricht and the economic news, we can go away for the recess with greater confidence than at any time since the previous general election.
The political mood of the country often starts in this House. It takes time to spread outwards, to percolate and to prevail, but I believe that we have a good chance this afternoon, as a result of a successful vote, to change the tone and to make a starting point. I believe that, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have cultivated the land well, despite much rough weather. I believe that we have sown good seed, and that we can now work together to bring in a good harvest.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 339.

Division No. 360] 
 [3.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Allen, Graham
Ashton, Joe


Alton, David
Austin-Walker, John






Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, Andrew F.
Galbraith, Sam


Benton, Joe
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Dr. Roger
Garrett, John


Betts. Clive
George, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Blunkett, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyce, Jimmy
Godsiff, Roger


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Mildred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Harvey, Nick


Cann, Jamie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Henderson, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Hume, John


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
lllsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davidson, Ian
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dixon, Don
Jowell, Tessa


Dobson, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H.
Keen, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S.


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Eastham, Ken
Kirkwood, Archy


Enright, Derek
Leighton, Ron


Etherington, Bill
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lewis, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Litherland, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Livingstone, Ken





Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Randall, Stuart


Llwyd, Elfyn
Raynsford, Nick


Loyden, Eddie
Redmond, Martin


Lynne, Ms Liz
Reid, Dr John


McAllion, John
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Richardson, Jo


McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Macdonald, Calum
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McFall, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McGrady, Eddie
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McKelvey, William
Rogers, Allan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Rooney, Terry


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McMaster, Gordon
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mallon, Seamus
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mandelson, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Simpson, Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Spellar, John


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Murphy, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wallace, James


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walley, Joan


O'Hara, Edward
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Olner, William
Wareing, Robert N


O'Neill, Martin
Watson, Mike


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wicks, Malcolm


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pickthall, Colin
Wilson, Brian


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Pope, Greg
Wise, Audrey


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn



Purchase, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Mr. Jack Thompson


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bates, Michael


Ashby, David
Batiste, Spencer


Aspinwall, Jack
Beggs, Roy






Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Gamier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Gillan, Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Critchley, Julian
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dicks, Terry
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Duncan, Alan
Jenkin, Bernard


Duncan-Smith, lain
Jessel, Toby


Dunn, Bob
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Eggar, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Elletson, Harold
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Faber, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fabricant, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knox, Sir David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fishburn, Dudley
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman





Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Legg, Barry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sackville, Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lidington, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Madel, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maginnis, Ken
Speed, Sir Keith


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Spink, Dr Robert


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, lain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, lain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trend, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trimble, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Ward, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. David Lightbown and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Sydney Chapman

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 299.

Division 361]
[4.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ancram, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Dicks, Terry


Atkins, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan-Smith, lain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, Andrew
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butcher, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butterfill, John
Gamier, Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorst, John


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Colvin, Michael
Hague, William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hanley, Jeremy


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hannam, Sir John


Cormack, Patrick
Hargreaves, Andrew


Couchman, James
Harris, David





Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hawkins, Nick
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hawksley, Warren
Moate, Sir Roger


Hayes, Jerry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Heald, Oliver
Monro, Sir Hector


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Hendry, Charles
Needham, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Sir Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Horam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Page, Richard


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Paice, James


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James


Jack, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pickles, Eric


Jenkin, Bernard
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rathbone, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Richards, Rod


Kilfedder, Sir James
Riddick, Graham


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robathan, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knox, Sir David
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luff, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir James (w Dorset)


Maginnis, Ken
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Major, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, lain


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan


Mates, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sykes, John


Merchant, Piers
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Milligan. Stephen
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, lain
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)






Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Trimble, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene
Connarty, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corston, Ms Jean


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Cummings, John


Austin-Walker, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dafis, Cynog


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tarn


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dixon, Don


Betts, Clive
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Tony
Donohoe, Brian H.


Blunkett, David
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyce, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boyes, Roland
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bradley, Keith
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Enright, Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Etherington, Bill


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burden, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John


Cann, Jamie
Fyfe, Maria


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Galbraith, Sam


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Garrett, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gerrard, Neil


Clelland, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Coffey, Ann
Godsiff, Roger





Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallon, Seamus


Gordon, Mildred
Mandelson, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Marek, Dr John


Graham, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Gunnell, John
Meacher, Michael


Hain, Peter
Meale, Alan


Hall, Mike
Michael, Alun


Hanson, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hardy, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Milburn, Alan


Harvey, Nick
Miller, Andrew


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)


Henderson, Doug
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hendron, Dr Joe
Morgan, Rhodri


Heppeil, John
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Home Robertson, John
Mudie, George


Hood, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Murphy, Paul


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)


Hoyle, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Olner, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hume, John
Parry, Robert


Hutton, John
Patchett, Terry


lllsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Redmond, Martin


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Richardson. Jo


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Leighton, Ron
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Madden, Max
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David






Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Tyler, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Dr Tony


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wallace, James



Walley, Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Watson, Mike

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.

Queen Mary's University Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Mr. David Mellor: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested that, now that the boil of Maastricht has been lanced, we have the opportunity to look to the future. I am glad to be the first to accept that invitation and to direct the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who has drawn the short straw and must remain a little longer on a Friday afternoon, to the future of London's health service. I do so, conscious of the fact that our brief debate, like most Adjournment debates, has not drawn a large audience. Outside the House, however, many people in the streets of London will be more concerned about the future of London's health services than the future of the Maastricht treaty. The Government have, thank goodness, got the problems of Maastricht out of the way, but it does not mean that there is not a range of other serious issues to be discussed.
I shall make two observations, the first about the future of London's health services and the second specifically about the future of Queen Mary's University hospital in Roehampton in my constituency and, in particular, its burns unit.
As a former Health Minister, I am bound to accept and welcome the fact that there has been a great transformation in the national health service in recent years. In the past decade, the national health service has for the first time become a truly national service in the sense that we now have a pattern of primary and secondary hospital acute care across the nation. It is no longer necessary for significant numbers of people to come to London from outside for treatment, as used to be the case in the old days due to the relatively underdeveloped state of services outside London.
That clearly has implications for London, and conclusions are being drawn. There is little doubt that conclusions have to be drawn about the future of London's health services. Conclusions can be drawn about whether the balance is right between acute care and primary health care. There are certainly far too many elderly GPs with lock-up shops practising in London. It is disgraceful that the British Medical Association has never taken any interest in that issue. The BMA is, of course, a trade union, so the BMA's concern for the patient becomes less obvious at that point.
One is aware of the dilemma that the Government face. I am certainly not one of those, particularly after the responsibilities I held, who would begin to say to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends now charged with one of the most onerous responsibilities in Government that change may not be necessary. However, it is appropriate to try to be wise before rather than after the event about the extent of that change.
There are too many cooks stirring the broth. The Tomlinson report, which in itself was enough of an agenda without anything else, proposed the closure of two household-name London hospitals—Charing Cross hospital and St. Bartholomew's hospital. Following fast and furious on the heels of Tomlinson, there has been a


proliferation of reports from something known as the London implementation group. Every week that passes seems to bring a new report, or the threat of a new report.
One of the problems with the great range of advice being offered to the Government is that it tends to run in contradictory directions. The Tomlinson report suggested the effective denuding of Charing Cross hospital's responsibilities. Once the nonsensical proposition of moving the Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden hospitals to the Charing Cross site was rightly knocked out by Ministers, the London implementation group's specialty reviews appeared to wish to move any available portable specialty to Charing Cross hospital.
I do not believe that the Government can afford to have too extensive an agenda on London's health services. Some of the things that the London implementation group is advising Ministers to do would be difficult to achieve, even if this were the most popular Administration ever invented and if every bit of open land in London was being cleared for the purpose of erecting statues to various leading figures in this Administration. Even if this were a popular Administration, some of the so-called experts are setting a challenging agenda for the Government.
In the Lobby just now, a fellow London Member of Parliament who today presented a petition concerning a hospital in his constituency said to me, "It's the Government that's in intensive care at the moment, not the health service." Ministers ought to bear that in mind when making their dispensations. My judgment is that the future of the London health service—[Interruption.] I trust that I am not already boring my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): No—carry on.

Mr. Mellor: If the Whip were to move away from my hon. Friend and they ceased their conversation, it would be much easier to deal with this matter. If my hon. Friend is going through some of the experiences that I went through when I was a Minister in the Department of Health, he might find some of this profitable.
There is no understanding among the public of the real challenge that faces those who run the health service. Experts may say that London is over-bedded, but that is not the view of the public at large. If one goes to Bart's, as I did the other day, one does not find empty beds. One finds plenty of work going on there which people are not disposed to regard as being readily portable elsewhere. There being no understanding of the basic evidence, it is fair enough to make the assessment that public confidence in the Government's ability to manage London's health service hangs by a thread—a thread which in my opinion the Government would be wise not to break.
A limited agenda for change, therefore, designed to move London's health service in the right direction but shorn of some of the more extraordinary proposals of the siren voices that have been let loose on these various studies and groups, might be the best advice that I could tender to the Government, as one of their loyal supporters. I have been through the maelstrom of the Department of Health and I know all too well what the public think and how readily the public can become agitated about an issue of this kind.
With the benefit of hindsight—and perhaps with a little more than that—the Government might have been better

advised not to let loose quite so many expert committees. This is a classic example of people being given power without responsibility. They have the power to blight great institutions by recommending that they should either be closed or shorn of important responsibilities, with vital services transferred from one institution to the other. That is the power to blight, to cause widespread public unrest and to stimulate professional concern, as doctors and nurses wonder whether they have a future within an institution in which they may have spent a working lifetime.
I certainly should not care to be the Minister who tried to take through the wide repertory of ideas being thrust forward with such frequency by these folk who, above all. do not have the responsibility of maintaining public confidence in the health service while their proposed changes are implemented. That is a classic example of why, far from being the voices of wisdom, so many of these specialist committees' suggestions are siren voices trying to lure the ship on to the rocks.
It is extraordinary that even on matters of which one would expect them to have some sensible grasp they seem to be wanting. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister—I dare say that he is already familiar with it—to the meeting of the Select Committee on Health on 14 July, before which three leading figures from the London implementation group appeared. One of the points that emerged was this, and I quote from a note that was made of the meeting:
it was acknowledged that the Tomlinson report and the speciality reviews had not considered in any depth the financial implications of their recommendations.
That seems a perfect piece of nonsense. How on earth, when the whole raison d'être of the exercise is fitting patient care to the principles of affordability, can a group of people be charged with that responsibility when they acknowledge that Tomlinson had not considered in any depth the financial implications and nor had the speciality reviews?
Having made that point, I turn to the issue of Queen Mary's University hospital. It is a popular hospital. A survey in The Independent ranked it as one of the 10 most popular hospitals in the country. It is highly regarded in our community and it has a partcular reputation for dealing with trauma. It has the largest, and perhaps the only, burns unit in London—certainly in an area with a London postal code. Its advanced plastic surgery unit is a legacy of the war years when plastic surgery was performed on those who were horribly disfigured in service in the Royal Air Force. Since the first world war, it has been the nation's foremost centre for dealing with artificial limbs. Indeed, Douglas Bader and victims of tragedies in the Falklands war or IRA bombs have all been treated there. Sir Ranulph Fiennes is a strong supporter of the hospital, which does not lack friends—another material point for the political consideration of this matter—and when he had to have a couple of toes amputated following his historic walk across Antarctica, he had the operation performed at Queen's Mary.
The burns unit was opened in 1985 at a cost of just over £3 million: I know, because I lobbied hard that it should be. Eight years on, the geniuses that the Department has asked to advise it suggest that it should be shut and that two others—one in Tooting and one in Guildford—should be opened. That leads one to scratch one's head and say, "But Queen Mary's University hospital has just been made


a trust hospital"—and I am grateful to the Department for doing that, in the teeth of opposition from the regional health authority.
The unit is extremely successful. I have supplied my hon. Friend the Minister with the facts about its workload, so I shall not weary him by repeating them. Suffice it to say that the workload has increased 10 per cent. in the financial year. It is a popular and successful unit which treats a significant number of people from overseas who have the worst burns imaginable. I defy anyone to visit a more haunting place than a burns unit containing patients who have suffered extreme burns. It requires particular dedication to care for them. Why on earth does the implementation group propose closing a unit which is eight years old and cost more than £3 million, and to establish two in its place? If the aim is to produce value for money, no one outside that small circle would believe that such a proposal is credible. The logic of the lunatic asylum is being brought to bear.
It is not a Conservative approach to life to decide that a unit that is growing and has existed as part of an institution for many years can be uprooted, moved, root and branch, and planted elsewhere without losing something. The fact that the unit will be replaced with another unit is not at issue. What matters is the unit's long history in the context of a hospital with an international reputation for treating serious trauma of all sorts. The unit passes all the tests that are set on the need to integrate a specialist unit into the range of other services that are sometimes needed. It is only on the renal unit test that Queen Mary's does not pass muster—I think that four patients—no more—in the past decade have had to be moved out of the burns unit for specialist renal work.
If, on its own merits, there is no reason why the burns unit should be moved, we must ask whether there is a hidden agenda—a thought which is exercising a number of my parliamentary colleagues in London. It is thought that some other motive lies behind the proposal involving the hit list of hospitals to be closed, that perhaps those charged at official level and so-called expert level have decided who shall be the quick and who shall be the dead. If there is no logic in the proposal to move the burns unit of Queen Mary's University hospital away from that hospital, there must be another reason.
There is only one reason for doing so apart from sheer perversity—which cannot be ruled out, but is unlikely—or professional jealousy. The reason is that it is thought inappropriate for a regional speciality to be continued in a hospital which may not have a future. The thinking is that perhaps Queen Mary's University hospital has had its time. Applying the logic of the proposal, it seems that that may be the reason.
I totally exonerate my hon. Friend the Minister of any blame—the committees have been established and are responsible for what they say—but the proposal cannot be justified on its own merits and it is deeply controversial and unacceptable to the public. Other hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who, as a Minister, cannot take part in this debate—are extremely concerned. As the subject involves a recommendation to the Government rather (Ilan from the Government, however, it is not bound by collective responsibility and I have my hon. Friend's

authority to say how concerned he is. A number of other hon. Members whose constituents have been treated at the unit are equally worried.
I do not envy my hon. Friend the Minister the task of trying to steer London's health services safely through the shoals which lie ahead. In view of the problems that exist in a wide context and the problems that we know exist with key London health services such as the ambulance service, which are still a long way from being got right, I urge on my hon. Friend the need to confine changes that will cause public uproar in relation to the closure of valued units and the closure of whole valued institutions to the bare minimum necessary to reshape our health services. I urge my hon. Friend to have confidence in the trusts that have been created. The Queen Mary's trust is not asking for no change—it is ready for change and is already thinking about a strategy that will involve change—but there is all the difference in the world between evolutionary change and change imposed by the arbitrary will of committees such as the specialty review.
Although I do not expect my hon. Friend to repudiate the proposal today, I think it only fair to tell him how I feel so that when, as I hope, in the autumn the Department returns to the topic, it will reassure some of us that it understands the sensitivity of the matter. I hope that it will have an agenda far smaller and across a far narrower canvas than the agenda that some of its experts, who carry no responsibility for the consequences, wish to impose upon it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on raising this important topic which is clearly of enormous importance to his constituents. The hospital in question is well loved and respected. Many of my right hon. and learned Friend's constituents and people living in south-west London and beyond have no doubt been treated at Queen Mary's. My right hon. and learned Friend has given us a flavour of the hospital's long experience and of the respect in which it is held.
My right hon. and learned Friend knows, because he is a former Health Minister, that many reports have been published over the years about the need for change in the provision of acute services in London. There have been more than a dozen; Tomlinson is just the latest and its birth was accelerated by the fact that we have separated the provider from the purchaser. We expect the various units to live within budgets, to budget carefully, and to project carefully their future work load and expenditure of income. Within that context, we shall see changes. We want to ensure that they are made in an organised manner.
The Tomlinson report, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, like many previous reports, has suggested that London is likely to be over-bedded in future in terms of acute services. We shall see a transfer which we shall have to push hard. We shall have to make some positive changes towards primary care which will affect many hospitals in London.
My right hon. and learned Friend also knows that the Tomlinson report and the Government's response to it set in hand six independent specialty reviews. One was to do with burns and plastic surgery, and one of the hospitals that was involved in the review as a provider of those


services was Queen Mary's. The London implementation group, which is the body set up by the Secretary of State to specialise, to go into great depth on the whole question and to give her advice about the decisions that she should take—later this year, we hope—was charged with reporting on acute hospital provision in south-west London.
The regional health authority has, therefore, set up a south-west London hospitals review. That is all quite clear. I do not think that it quite merits the description that my right hon. and learned Friend gave it. He did me the courtesy of giving me some idea of what he would say through the medium of the early editions of the Evening Standard.

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend's office was advised by those at Queen Mary's of the point that I was going to make, and I invited my hon. Friend to telephone me before 10 am, which he failed to do. My hon. Friend would do well to deal with the substance of the matter rather than making silly points.

Mr. Sackville: My right hon. and learned Friend should not take it too personally. He has made some fairly critical remarks about the review group, both in his speech and in the local newspaper. I remind him that three eminent consultants—for example, Mr. Philip Sykes, the consultant plastic surgeon at St. Lawrence's hospital in Chepstow—a senior nurse, Mrs. Driver from Leicester, and others have given their time to advise impartially on how they see the future for plastics and burns in south-west London.
I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that there is no sub-agenda. The group is merely saying what it believes will be the demand in the future and how that demand can best be met. The members of the group have decided that, in their opinion, there should be a split, because quite a large number of the patients come to Queen Mary's from beyond the M25. That is their opinion; it is advice which they are offering the Secretary of State. I cannot debate with my right hon. and learned Friend the details of that—indeed, I am glad to say that he has not invited me to do so. That is just one factor in the decisions that will have to be made later.
My right hon. and learned Friend talked about public confidence. The changes that have to be made iire extremely worrying for staff, patients and others. We must make any changes that we have to make in as calm and organised a way as possible. Clearly, Queen Mary's has great qualities, and they will all be taken into account. My right hon. and learned Friend must remember, however, that in all these matters, the patient and patient services are what matter.
Loyalty tends to be to buildings and institutions—that is the same everwhere—rather than to the services that are provided in them. Sometimes, painful decisions have to be made. I remind the House that that is true all over the country. In all the great conurbations, we find that we

probably have too many buildings, too many acute beds and a very expensive health service that will probably have to be changed so that we can deliver it more efficiently. We know that demand will grow and we will have to make sure that we achieve the greatest efficiency. People in London must remember that there is life outside the M25. There are enormous problems—

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is in danger of persuading me that, coming from Stockport, he is unaware that there is life within the M25. He had better not be too insouciant about this issue.

Mr. Sackville: It is Bolton, not Stockport. The problems that afflict Newcastle, Birmingham, Manchester and all the great conurbations are the same, even if in London they are perhaps more intense. Difficult decisions have to be made everywhere. If we do not face up to the sort of decisions that have to be taken in London, because it is the capital or because of the influence of particular consultants or the national media or whatever, we are letting down the NHS employees around the country and patients who may feel—there is evidence to back this up —that, until now, they have been subsidising services in London.
Those are the arguments that lead up to the Tomlinson report and those are the kinds of decisions that we have to make. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will remember that.
There are always powerful arguments to be made against the closure of any well-loved hospital or of any health services. They can be made in more or less emotional ways. They can be made by pointing to quality of services, to the venerability of services or whatever. But we must face the fact that changes will have to be made.
I will not try to prejudge this issue. I will only say to my right hon. and learned Friend that what he has said this afternoon will have been heard. Everything that he has said will be taken into account in any decisions that will be made later this year—as will a petition which I understand is being organised from Queen Mary's, and all the other factors, including the specialty review.
There is no hidden sub-agenda in any recommendations that have been made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Queen Mary's. Decisions have to be made based on what will, over the next half century, be the best way to deliver services for everyone in south-west London taking into account the effects that those decisions have on services for people who live further out and who now have to come into London and may not feel that that is the future for them.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend once more on raising this subject today and I have no doubt that what he has said will be heard and will influence the debate very strongly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Five o'clock.